TheSpud"]
deviant said:
This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.
Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.
I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.
So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:
1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.
2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.
3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).
4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.
I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.
Spud[/quote]
I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.
Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.
Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.
They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.
Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.
In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.
Lets put an end to this crap.
The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.
Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.
Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that
actually got leaked.
Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.[/quote]
Gotta love your hypocrisy Hitch. I could easily find a few examples of you quickly jumping in with both feet when anyone dares to speak on behalf of or put words into the mouth of 'the Clinic'. But eh, you do exactly the same in reverse and that's ok because your mind is made up (your very own words, not me making them up for you) and those with different opinions are just wrong.
Sorry, i'm not falling in line. This 'crap' goes on. You're entitled to your opinion. You don't get to tell me, or anyone else for that matter what mine should be.
You see, its possible to be really, really interested in a story, without having any emotion invested in how that story plays out. I'm not a fan of Froome or Sky. I don't hate them either. I'm a fan of cycling, not just as a sport but as a show. Right now, and indeed for several years Sky/Froome have been the biggest story in town. I'm really, really interested in how that story plays. But i don't really care how it turns out. Like all good stories, eventually it will come to an end, and another one will come along to replace it. I'll probably be really, really interested in that one too, but i probably wont care how it turns out.
So, i keep 'sitting on the fence', there's no motivation to jump down on to either side. I'm an Engineer, years in practice have made me inquisitive but with an aversion to loose ends. So i keep asking questions, i keep replugging in the answers to those questions to new calculations until things compute and the loose ends disappear.
In this forum, that translates to me questioning any theories that are not proven. Trying to make them compute. I enjoy debate, and all this really is, is an enjoyable distraction from the really important stuff in my life.
I'm sorry if this means more to you. I'm sorry if you've got emotional investments tied up here. If cycling for you is about the purity of sport i get that. Keep doing what you're doing for your own reasons.
But please cut out the personal attacks and arrogant assumptions that you know what motivates everyone else.[/quote]
It's an absurdity that in 2017
people continue to maintain that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution in respect of professional sports. The concept of innocent until proved guilty in this context is an anachronism. That Lord Coe himself is seeking to reset every World record in track and field tells you that professional sport is, from the point of view of reputation, insolvent.
A WR reset is a declaration of bankruptcy. What irritates Clinicians are the endless bailouts which SKY apologists demand for their own chosen “emotional investments”.[/quote]
Eh?? Who said this? Certainly not me. On the contrary, this is what i said yesterday...
"Todays events have been seismic in terms of the doping debate; he's shifted from highly suspicious but innocent until proven guilty, to now being guilty until proven innocent in my mind"
...and the rules specific to this case also make it clear that the burden of proof now lies with Froome, and unless he can produce it he will be found guilty.
So not quite sure who this claim of absurdity is aimed at here
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram