Evidence vs proof

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 22, 2009
137
0
0
Netserk said:
What do you think is most likely: Sky clean, or Sky dirty?

Well, it would be silly to say they were not likely clean. So I say dirty, by default, based on history of cycling and their performances. To me there's no real evidence, and they could be clean, too. Also, it's not that simple since there are always grey areas + small-scale doping by individual members so how do you define a clean team...
 
Sep 22, 2009
137
0
0
ChrisE said:
Not quite inre to you understanding me; I think we are on totally different wavelengths when it comes to deductive reasoning and understanding why we think like we do. Your posts are full of contradictions and I am pretty convinced you have no reason why that is so. Your post above in terms of whittling this down to doping in cycling = doping by Sky proves that point. That is only one of the many issues that taken by itself could be argued away IMO. Again, it is the totality of things other than just that one issue that rational people use to form opinions.

I only used statistical analysis example to further illustrate my point, in a doomed attempt to help you see the discussion another way.

Little did I realize by doing that I unlocked the hidden FKLance secret to life of ignoring odds, likelihoods, statistics etc. because they 'have little to do with real life'. OK. :rolleyes:


Well, you don't understand me and vice versa... I guess my point was lost at some point, might be my poor articulation. I'm gonna go and try harder to keep myself out of these discussions. There are many in this thread whose opinions I share..
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
FKLance said:
Well, you don't understand me and vice versa... I guess my point was lost at some point, might be my poor articulation. I'm gonna go and try harder to keep myself out of these discussions. There are many in this thread whose opinions I share..

The parochialism on display here as it relates to Sky is funny. It almost makes me want them to re-instate Lance's titles.

There is so little difference between those defending Sky and those who defended Armstrong that I sometimes check the calendar to make sure it isn't 2006 again...well, except that many of those defending Sky were virulently anti-Armstrong. Some, not all.

Funny, they're virulently anti-Horner too. GO HORNER!!! AMERICA F**K YEA!!!!
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
FKLance said:
Well, you don't understand me and vice versa... I guess my point was lost at some point, might be my poor articulation. I'm gonna go and try harder to keep myself out of these discussions. There are many in this thread whose opinions I share..

No, I think I do understand you.

Regardless of all the 'evidence' taken in its entirety that likely means doping, you still want to give the benefit of doubt to the athlete until more 'proof' is exposed, assuming an AAF. That is a noble position, with basis in adversarial judicial philosophy which I do happen to believe in. The sanctioning of an athlete must be based upon that, and not purely on circumstantial evidence such as the list DW gave. But, the basis of this thread is the attitude of this forum. Different animal. Conclusions made in this forum are different than some, especially I, would use to solely base sanction on.

FYI I once had an argument on this forum about whether LA should have been sanctioned or stripped of his titles when the 99 samples were exposed in Lemonde. My position, regardless of whether I thought they contained EPO or not and regardless of all the other circumstantial evidence of his wins, was that he should not be sanctioned because protocol was not followed; he had no chance to defend himself with a witnessed B sample and chain of command of the samples was not sufficiently documented and clearly understood by all parties. I ended up getting grudging agreement from some of the pitchfork gang, though I can't remember the exact players.

I still believe that, even in hindsight. A governing authority must be held to higher standards than an internet forum, where livelihoods are at stake. I am sure you have heard the saying 'better to let 10 guilty's go than convict one innocent'. I am in that camp.

Where you need to come to terms with yourself IMO, is you do not trust the athlete and that is where your argument is confusing. Even if you don't want to agree (for some reason), your distrust is based upon that mound of evidence DW listed. So, it has an impact on how you view this whole issue, else we could just be talking about whether a random person on the street did some random act the previous 24 hours. You do not randomly distrust people, or distrust everybody by default. Winning GT's in this atmosphere is not a random act, especially when somebody does it out of the blue with all the other evidence listed. You have to admit that.

So, your position of distrust is in fact based upon evidence, though you don't want to admit it. Having an opinion is not the same as saying "rider X should be sanctioned". I am not saying that, though some posters in here with no basis of reality or self awareness may argue differently. Maybe that is where we are losing eachother, but if that is what you are trying to say then we agree.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The parochialism on display here as it relates to Sky is funny. It almost makes me want them to re-instate Lance's titles.

There is so little difference between those defending Sky and those who defended Armstrong that I sometimes check the calendar to make sure it isn't 2006 again...well, except that many of those defending Sky were virulently anti-Armstrong. Some, not all.

Funny, they're virulently anti-Horner too. GO HORNER!!! AMERICA F**K YEA!!!!

I'm sorry you can't dream big! Or, whatever he said on the podium....Good grief, Froome's attack on Ventoux,? was absurd....laughable really...barely looked at it but why even bother paying attention? And for Walsh to be sucked in? c'mon...
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Jeremiah said:
I'm sorry you can't dream big! Or, whatever he said on the podium....Good grief, Froome's attack on Ventoux,? was absurd....laughable really...barely looked at it but why even bother paying attention? And for Walsh to be sucked in? c'mon...

This...............
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
RiccoDinko said:
Not crying, just pointing out the double standards in this forum. It seems a lot of posters give everything before 1998 a free pass, like doping was OK before 1998.


I've learned a lot in the Clinic. It seems all performances are suspect, unless you don't perform at all. The entire peloton is guilty, there's no proving innocence. You can only be proven dirty. Riders and Doctors will always be ahead of game when it comes to doping. So why even bother with all this?

Everything before 1998 gets a free pass . . . into a circus of doping.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The parochialism on display here as it relates to Sky is funny. It almost makes me want them to re-instate Lance's titles.

There is so little difference between those defending Sky and those who defended Armstrong that I sometimes check the calendar to make sure it isn't 2006 again...well, except that many of those defending Sky were virulently anti-Armstrong. Some, not all.

Funny, they're virulently anti-Horner too. GO HORNER!!! AMERICA F**K YEA!!!!

Yeah I find that weird too. I'm sure if Sky wasn't a Limey team they'd be anti-Sky too. It's amazing that some people even now are just a bunch of dumb flag waving idiots.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Yeah I find that weird too. I'm sure if Sky wasn't a Limey team they'd be anti-Sky too. It's amazing that some people even now are just a bunch of dumb flag waving idiots.

Armstrong and Horner are evil dopers. Froome and Wigans did it by farcical gains...sorry, marginal gains.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The parochialism on display here as it relates to Sky is funny. It almost makes me want them to re-instate Lance's titles.

There is so little difference between those defending Sky and those who defended Armstrong that I sometimes check the calendar to make sure it isn't 2006 again...well, except that many of those defending Sky were virulently anti-Armstrong. Some, not all.

Funny, they're virulently anti-Horner too. GO HORNER!!! AMERICA F**K YEA!!!!

Would you acknowledge that the current evidence against Sky is well below the level of that against Armstrong in 2006?
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
TailWindHome said:
Would you acknowledge that the current evidence against Sky is well below the level of that against Armstrong in 2006?

Isn't it logical that it shouldn't be? In 2006, LA had been on the rumor scene for 10+ years. SKY has only been at this for 3. They are trying to make it a competitive race, though.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
ChrisE said:
Isn't it logical that it shouldn't be? In 2006, LA had been on the rumor scene for 10+ years. SKY has only been at this for 3. They are trying to make it a competitive race, though.

Quite.

That's why it's so disingenuous to compare those not convinced by the evidence against Sky 'now' to those still being fooled by Lance and crew in 2006.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
TailWindHome said:
Quite.

That's why it's so disingenuous to compare those not convinced by the evidence against Sky 'now' to those still being fooled by Lance and crew in 2006.

Armstrong was easier to believe, especially in the early years. Sky on the other hand are only believeable to british people.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
the sceptic said:
Armstrong was easier to believe, especially in the early years. Sky on the other hand are only believeable to british people.

Armstrong achieved so much more pre-Tour winning days than Wiggins/Froome et al hence it being a bit more believable.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
TailWindHome said:
Would you acknowledge that the current evidence against Sky is well below the level of that against Armstrong in 2006?

Never tested positive, high cadence, lost weight, everyone else but USPS/Discovery/Sky are training under old methods, a guy (2+ for Sky) transformed from marginal talent to Tour winners. In fact, Sky have done something USPS never did in multi-stage tours throughout the year.

No, I wouldn't agree.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
SundayRider said:
Armstrong achieved so much more pre-Tour winning days than Wiggins/Froome et al hence it being a bit more believable.

Froome won the Atomic Jock Race, I don't know why you people can't see the clear indication that gave...
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Froome won the Atomic Jock Race, I don't know why you people can't see the clear indication that gave...

Which his wiki page(before it got changed) said this "In July he won the [[Classic]] race, Anatomic Jock Race, in Barberton South."
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Never tested positive, high cadence, lost weight, everyone else but USPS/Discovery/Sky are training under old methods, a guy (2+ for Sky) transformed from marginal talent to Tour winners. In fact, Sky have done something USPS never did in multi-stage tours throughout the year.

No, I wouldn't agree.

Then you're wrong. Plain and simple.

By 2006 the 'case for the prosecution' against UPS/Armstrong had a team mates confession, eye witness testimony to doping and the covering up of doping, an eyewitness to Lances hospital bed confession and retesting of urine samples.

That is 'evidence'.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
TailWindHome said:
Then you're wrong. Plain and simple.

By 2006 the 'case for the prosecution' against UPS/Armstrong had a team mates confession, eye witness testimony to doping and the covering up of doping, an eyewitness to Lances hospital bed confession and retesting of urine samples.

That is 'evidence'.

So Armstrong got 4th in the 1998 Vuelta kicked *** at the next 7 TdF's then an ex-team mate confessed in 2006. So using the sky time line we still have 4 years before a team mate spills the beans.
 
Mar 11, 2009
10,062
1
22,485
ChewbaccaD said:
Never tested positive, high cadence, lost weight, everyone else but USPS/Discovery/Sky are training under old methods, a guy (2+ for Sky) transformed from marginal talent to Tour winners. In fact, Sky have done something USPS never did in multi-stage tours throughout the year.

No, I wouldn't agree.

2006? Don't be daft.
The 1999 Tour positives unmasked by L'Equipe in 2005.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
TailWindHome said:
Then you're wrong. Plain and simple.

By 2006 the 'case for the prosecution' against UPS/Armstrong had a team mates confession, eye witness testimony to doping and the covering up of doping, an eyewitness to Lances hospital bed confession and retesting of urine samples.

That is 'evidence'.

and in 2001? how many doping cases against postal?
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
the sceptic said:
and in 2001? how many doping cases against postal?

One failed test that was covered up.

Also back then, the internet was in its infancy, no twitter and an (even more) compliant mainstream media. IMO it's much harder now to cover things up in general than it was back then. If there is organised team doping then it will come out sooner rather than later, riders doping off their own back can still get away with it, if they are careful.