Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[rhubroma]

I agree with this but Froome at the level he is at would still have Nibali's measure.

Sure Murdoch can kick Vino's a$$ any day.

 

[darwin553]

No, I explained above what I meant. Reading is fundamental.

Is this not a summary view of your 'reading' of the thread??

We have such evidence, and it has been repeated many times above, but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss it.

 

[BYOP88]

Do Sky pay better than USPS did?

 

[thehog]

Do Sky pay better than USPS did?

Murdoch had to do something with all his teeny MySpace staff when he clsoed that website down.

Skybots are go!

50c a word.

 

[Snafu352]

rhubroma, i find it curious and / or suspicious that having claimed to have evidence you won't engage on what you are doing with that evidence.
Either you do or you don't, which is it? If you do what are you doing with it?
If you do why do you think it is a good idea to hint that you possess such on an internet forum? Surely that would be counter productive to catching Froome?
Are you here merely to get some satisfaction that the rest of your life does not provide?

 

[UlisesLima]

Here is where you are failing old son, along with the majority of the clinic. There is masses of speculation, none of which is based on hard fact or data, thus it is not evidence whatever you or your chums may sincerely, deeply, wish to believe.



It is interesting when people wish to define parameters for the debate. It has always suggested to me that they wish to be able to mainipulate the discussion to suit their beliefs.

If and when real evidence is presented then fine until that point the un-substantiated claims, wild speculation passed off as fact and the level of vitriol is completely un-justified.

It seems to me that many of the clinics populance are still feeling **** hurt by their belief in armstrong and now want to be the first to attack rather than get hurt again.

As i said i don't know who is doping or not. Thankfully much as i enjoy cycling, things like style don't bother me but speculation piled on speculation until some claim it as evidence does. That's lying about others and that's what armstrong did and that's the thing i dislike him for more than the doping.

On TV the other day there was a televised re-trial of the convicted Scottish murderer Nat Fraser, who had been found guilty of murdering his wife in 1998, even though her body has never been found. There is no cast-iron PROOF that she is even dead, never mind that she was murdered. The circumstantial evidence, however, was overwhelming, to the extent that two different juries on two separate occasions found him guilty of her murder beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. Sometimes it is sufficient, sometimes it isn't. Evidence and fact are two different things. To say that there is no EVIDENCE of Froome being doped is simply not true. There is evidence to suggest that he is doping. Even if he isn't doping, there is evidence to suggest that he is.

 

[Red Lobster]

Actually he did not speak for me, he addressed his response to me.

Your opening triade above is quite funny given that it exactly what you have done in it. Very impressive writing

Back to the Froome stuff, he might well be doping, why would delivering the team data to WADA be a bad thing?

He undertook to speak for me. Please do try and keep up.

I have not opined on delivering the team data to WADA; why are you asking me to support the position that doing so would be a bad thing?

 

[Red Lobster]

Is this not a summary view of your 'reading' of the thread??

Sigh. No. I explained above. Please reread.

 

[darwin553]

I have not opined on delivering the team data to WADA; why are you asking me to support the position that doing so would be a bad thing?

I thought you spoke for the general consensus of the thread??

 

[Snafu352]

.

So no answer to my earlier question? Why would WADA getting all the teams data be a bad thing?

 

[Red Lobster]

I thought you spoke for the general consensus of the thread??

Why would you make that assumption on this issue?

 

[rhubroma]

rhubroma, i find it curious and / or suspicious that having claimed to have evidence you won't engage on what you are doing with that evidence.
Either you do or you don't, which is it? If you do what are you doing with it?
If you do why do you think it is a good idea to hint that you possess such on an internet forum? Surely that would be counter productive to catching Froome?
Are you here merely to get some satisfaction that the rest of your life does not provide?

I'm just not inclined to share it with you. I love the fact that you are dying in your own doubt.

 

[darwin553]

Sigh. No. I explained above. Please reread.

You spoke in your explanation of the use of the word "we" about you speaking for the participants in it -

We have such evidence, and it has been repeated many times above, but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss it.

"We" is referring those participating on the forum: you, me, the hog, darwin, et al.

Why am I lending myself to this view and how are you speaking for me?

 

[Snafu352]

There is evidence to suggest that he is doping. Even if he isn't doping, there is evidence to suggest that he is.

Evidence suggesting he is doping is different from evidence that he is doping. Most posts here take the latter stance. I can agree with the first but not the second.
There is speculation based on assumptions that is being presented as fact and used as evidence of doping.
In response to claims of times the same as known dopers somebody asked if the circumstances were the same for both rides, a deafening silence has greeted that question.
There are undoubtably questions to be asked and it appears that to an extent they are being asked more then in the armstrong era. It is interesting to note however that David Walsh is now being questioned / doubted as it appears he is not delviering the verdict at present that the clinic appear to want.
Maybe he will in time.

 

[Snafu352]

I'm just not inclined to share it with you. I love the fact that you are dying in your own doubt.

So you are a bull****ter / troll then, fine. As long as i know who i am dealing with.

Not sure what the dying in doubt bit is about?

As i've said many times i don't know who is doping and who is not.

From the above comment of yours it is clear that you, along with me and all the other nobodies here, don't know either.

 

[thehog]

So no answer to my earlier question? Why would WADA getting all the teams data be a bad thing?

Who said it was a bad thing?

However all teams need to work under the same governance and structure. One team can't bully its way in and say "here is our data to prove we're clean, we can never test positive now or have a passport case because WADA said so".

Do you understand the implications of this?

What happens if a passport case is opened up against Porte. It eventually goes to CAS and Sky in their defense use the fact that they sent data to WADA and they said they were clean. No one sees the data but WADA said they were clean.

No, it shouldn't happen. Unless every team works under the same framework then its fundamentally wrong.

WADA already receive independent data from the UCI and other bodies. It shouldn't come directly from a team. That’s bordering on a donation.

In any case Sky are not serious about it. It’s just PR talk. No chance they said data to WADA.

 

[darwin553]

Evidence suggesting he is doping is different from evidence that he is doping. Most posts here take the latter stance. I can agree with the first but not the second.
There is speculation based on assumptions that is being presented as fact and used as evidence of doping.
In response to claims of times the same as known dopers somebody asked if the circumstances were the same for both rides, a deafening silence has greeted that question.
There are undoubtably questions to be asked and it appears that to an extent they are being asked more then in the armstrong era. It is interesting to note however that David Walsh is now being questioned / doubted as it appears he is not delviering the verdict at present that the clinic appear to want.
Maybe he will in time.

Could it be, given he is arguably the greatest journalistic arbiter on doping in cycling there has been that his inaction on or lack of questioning about Froome indicating his confidence that he is clean will be indeed proved correct over time?

 

[Red Lobster]

You spoke in your explanation of the use of the word "we" about you speaking for the participants in it -

Why am I lending myself to this view and how are you speaking for me?

Ok, this has been a huge waste of time but let me rephrase it in a way that will hopefully quell your concerns about the use of "we":

"Repeated above in this thread, for the benefit of all those reading and participating in the thread, are a multitude of observations regarding Froome and Sky which point to the likelihood that Froome is doped; but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss such observations."

 

[Red Lobster]

Note to the thread: Red Lobster apologizes for engaging Snafu and Darwin in a pointless and drivel filled exchange which has needlessly cluttered the thread ... mods encouraged to delete liberally. Will not repeat this mistake.

 

[rhubroma]

So you are a bull****ter / troll then, fine. As long as i know who i am dealing with.

Not sure what the dying in doubt bit is about?

As i've said many times i don't know who is doping and who is not.

From the above comment of yours it is clear that you, along with me and all the other nobodies here, don't know either.

Nope, not a troll dear. What I meant was that your insecurity comes full fore.

As for the rest, I live in Italy. Nuff said.

 

[darwin553]

WADA already receive independent data from the UCI and other bodies. It shouldn't come directly from a team. That’s bordering on a donation.

Why would it be a donation if WADA are simply being asked to carry out their job by assessing Sky's data for instances of possible doping? Would it be better if the handing over of the data were UCI sanctioned?

 

[Deagol]

....It seems to me that many of the clinics populance are still feeling **** hurt by their belief in armstrong and now want to be the first to attack rather than get hurt again.
....

most members of the clinic were smart enough to not believe in Armstrong in the first place..

 

[shakeshakeshake]

Moncoutie has a faster time than Froome on Ventoux- isn't he one of the guys thats kind of a benchmark for clean cycling?

 

[darwin553]

Ok, this has been a huge waste of time but let me rephrase it in a way that will hopefully quell your concerns about the use of "we":

"Repeated above in this thread, for the benefit of all those reading and participating in the thread, are a multitude of observations regarding Froome and Sky which point to the likelihood that Froome is doped; but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss such observations."

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

'This thread has complied loads of evidence into Froome etc' rather than used the word 'we have' as that denotes the thread having a specific purpose in mind which is to gather evidence and that you have authority to speak on behalf of the whole thread.

 

[red_flanders]

To the current crew of members insulting and personally attacking one another over the last few pages–here's your warning. It's not allowed. Please don't continue. I won't be offering more warnings to you.

If your post refers to other poster, that's a hint that you've lost the plot and are off-topic, and likely personally attacking the other poster. If you can't argue the facts you don't have an argument.

We can do better. Thanks.