Re: Re:
Eh no…because on the balance of probabilities he is doping......
1. He’s a pro cyclist…a branch of the sport known for its culture of doping
2. He’s won a TDF (x2) the winners of which have a long a glorious history of doping
3. He had a mid-20s transformation – described by Cram as smelling like rotten fish…as well as being obvious to anyone who engaged brain
4. His mid-20s transformation coincided with SKYs employment of a well-known and successful ‘preparatore’
5. His mid-20s transformation coincided with extreme weight loss AND increased power (almost chicken like – see point 4)
6. He is beating GT riders who have not had mid 20s transformation i.e. they were always good and who (based on points 1 and 2 above are also probably doping)
7. He lies about his background – bilharzia and his medical records
8. He/SKY won’t release existing data about his physical capabilities pre mid transformation – rather they go to the expense and palaver of these current ‘tests’ which will prove nothing
9. He kills rabbits (the red herring)
10. He/SKY has a relationship with Zorzoli..Lienders go-to-guy to discuss TUEs and other red flags
11. He is on a team where two of its riders have had blood issues..as well as the being riven (like any other pro-cycling team – see point 1 – with ex-dopers who know the benefits of being ‘prepared’)
12. He is on a team which has an incestuous and symbiotic relationship with the head of the sport’s governing body
All of that is even before we look at
13. He is out-performing doped performances of the past…and at levels Armstrong would call ‘not-normal’
Now…take any one on its own and you might have a point…there would be a low probability…however…and if you’re a betting man and like accumulators…add them all together and…well, as Ullrich said…”If you can’t…..etc”
adamfo said:Texeng said:Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?Andynonomous said:Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.
We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.
Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?
The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.
The claim that "The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%" would be torn to shreds in a civil court as an appeal to probability, an inductive argument.
Eh no…because on the balance of probabilities he is doping......
1. He’s a pro cyclist…a branch of the sport known for its culture of doping
2. He’s won a TDF (x2) the winners of which have a long a glorious history of doping
3. He had a mid-20s transformation – described by Cram as smelling like rotten fish…as well as being obvious to anyone who engaged brain
4. His mid-20s transformation coincided with SKYs employment of a well-known and successful ‘preparatore’
5. His mid-20s transformation coincided with extreme weight loss AND increased power (almost chicken like – see point 4)
6. He is beating GT riders who have not had mid 20s transformation i.e. they were always good and who (based on points 1 and 2 above are also probably doping)
7. He lies about his background – bilharzia and his medical records
8. He/SKY won’t release existing data about his physical capabilities pre mid transformation – rather they go to the expense and palaver of these current ‘tests’ which will prove nothing
9. He kills rabbits (the red herring)
10. He/SKY has a relationship with Zorzoli..Lienders go-to-guy to discuss TUEs and other red flags
11. He is on a team where two of its riders have had blood issues..as well as the being riven (like any other pro-cycling team – see point 1 – with ex-dopers who know the benefits of being ‘prepared’)
12. He is on a team which has an incestuous and symbiotic relationship with the head of the sport’s governing body
All of that is even before we look at
13. He is out-performing doped performances of the past…and at levels Armstrong would call ‘not-normal’
Now…take any one on its own and you might have a point…there would be a low probability…however…and if you’re a betting man and like accumulators…add them all together and…well, as Ullrich said…”If you can’t…..etc”