Re: Re:
bambino said:
1. Froome in midst of AAF for Specified Substance probe.
2. At this point, he is free to ride ... and is riding.
3. Before the Giro, he may well be sanctioned at not allowed to ride Giro, etc, etc. (I'd be totally cool with that.)
4. At the start of the Giro, his case may be yet unadjudicated
5. If there are no sanctions on him at that time, there are no WADA/UCI rules to prevent him from riding the Giro
6. Giro organizers/owners "may" try to prevent him from riding the Giro, using the recently pummelled "Disrepute" clause.
7. There are some on here who belive that the Disrepute Card will be played and easily played by Giro organizers, preventing Froome from riding the aforesaid race.
8. Some of the those, mentioned in #7, above, have a bona fide, unbiased opinion ... that Froome's appearance would ( measurably) bring the race into disrepute.
9. Some others ... of the those, mentioned in #7, above, ( I think it's safe to say) found Froome to bring professional cycling into disrepute ... well before his AAF ... because he was an extraterrestrial, was a member of Team Sky, had a wife named Michelle, had only 1 testicle, lacked panache, was MFkin gangly, etc.
10. Some of us on here, some of us "accused trolls" ... some of us with no allegiances to Froome or Sky ( but what would it matter?) ... believe that the Disrepute Card will be very hard for Giro organizers to play ... and for very good reasons.[/quote]
No-one asked you opinion, but had to respond? You had a change of sift with your buddy?
Anyway - although I said this debate is done for me, I decided to respond to this. I also decided to report this post and seek for mods opinion whether this message accounts for potential false accusation of other forum members, because you are using
lies wihtin your message to boost your own (biased or not, who cares) point and make others look stupid. It is also pretty easy to identify who you talk about, although you cleverly point it to no-one spesific. Let me explain:
1. I agree, never said anything otherwise. I haven't seen anyone else saying otherwise either.
2. I agree. The rules allows him to ride until someone takes other actions against him based on
rules
3. I agree. I would be totally cool if he gets cleared out as well.
4. I agree. Though multiple poster including me has said this would be very bad for the sport and they should speed up the process.
5. I don't agree. There is a
rule that allows organizers to decline him racing. I've asked time and time again someone to explain why that
rule does not allow organizers to potentially decline him from racing. It is a
rule like any other
rule.
6. You yourself contradict from your #5. First you said there is no
rule. Now you refer to the
rule. It is as powerful
rule as any other in the rulebook.
7. And now the
lying starts to add things that boost your stance and makes others look stupid. I have never said it would be easy for the organizer to invoke the disrepute
rule clause. I don't recall anyone else saying it would be easy. This is balant
lie. We have only argued there is a
rule that gives them the right to act. No-one has been able to prove that there is not
rule.
8. Another
lie. I don't recall anyone saying they have bona fide, unbiaset opinion that Froome riding would harm the reputation of race. You are saying they are bona fide and unbiaset and you categorize the writes here by saying that without knowing factually. I don't think anyone has either said the pure appearance of Froome would disrepute the race. What I'm saying is that the possible stripping of his results afterwards, due to known AAF investigation, would harm the reputation of the race and sport. I.e. known Sky fan Parker admitted this would be harmful to the reputation. You could add sub-bullet #8.5 which says that we shouldn't know about the investigation. Which I agree based on
rules. That doesn't change the fact that we know it and it is public.
9. This point has nothing to do with the debate we are having. You are using forum members dislike of a rider as vehicle to point out the writer debating about the
rules are stupid, wrong and biased. I've never said anywhere that Froome is bringing the sport into dis-repute by his mere excistence. So actually you are
lying to point this opinion into this debate.
10. See the response to #7. Why would you need to power your message with this statement and "accused troll" into picture while you had already #5 where you could've explained the easy/hard part? I repeat, I've never said, and I haven't seen nobody else saying, that banning Froome from i.e. would be easy. Never. That is in your head and is a balant lie. I just argue there is a
rule that makes it possible.
See this is how you work. Lot of good and agreeable material, but then twisting the thruth here and there to make others look stupid. And using fancy laid back language to show that you mean no harm. ***.[/quote]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bambino ... I bear you no malice.
Like you, I have a right to express my opinion. The Clinic is open 24/7 ... with a big feckin Neon sign ... saying ... "Give us your opinion."
Nothing that I said in my (quoted) post (except the 1 testicle embellishment

) is a lie or a misrepresentation of Clinic sentiment. These are simply statements made to rebut arguments in a spirited debate/banter.
Trying to make people look stupid? Absolutely not true.
Indeed ... having a dissenting opinion on this thread usually attracts a lot of heat, accusations of Fanboy, etc. I'm cool with it. This is a sports banter room. Don't take yourself and the topic so seriously. Just sayin. Peace.