Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 999 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
Link that one for us all, please.
The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.
So, no link?
Find it yourself. Go ask him @sportingintel. I've told you all you need to know. I'm not searching twitter for you to then add another layer of conspiracy to protect yourself for the idea that your trolling dogma may be wrong.
 
thehog said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
Link that one for us all, please.
The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.
So, no link?
Nick Harris article from 2014 on Froome and illnesses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2673588/Chris-Froomes-secret-battle-Eight-doctors-six-clinics-four-countries-five-different-illnesses-remarkable-personal-struggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html

Mr & Mrs Froome go through the bilharzia saga (and more) with Kimmage
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
 
This I did not know ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3166687/Sky-quizzed-doctor-Chris-Froome-s-integrity-following-British-cyclist-s-breakthrough-ride-2011.html
Froome, now 30, was on the brink of being let go by Sky almost four years ago when he turned in a brilliant performance in that Spanish race, finishing second. The following year he played a major role in Bradley Wiggins’s 2012 Tour de France victory and then in 2013 won the Tour himself.

‘Dave Brailsford asked the doctor to explain Froome’s transformation and wondered if drugs were being used,’ a source told us. ‘The doctor had no explanation and his own contract was not renewed.

The Mail on Sunday knows his identity and it is believed he has an entirely unblemished record.
SDB suspected ... ? knew? :confused:
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
This I did not know ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3166687/Sky-quizzed-doctor-Chris-Froome-s-integrity-following-British-cyclist-s-breakthrough-ride-2011.html
Froome, now 30, was on the brink of being let go by Sky almost four years ago when he turned in a brilliant performance in that Spanish race, finishing second. The following year he played a major role in Bradley Wiggins’s 2012 Tour de France victory and then in 2013 won the Tour himself.

‘Dave Brailsford asked the doctor to explain Froome’s transformation and wondered if drugs were being used,’ a source told us. ‘The doctor had no explanation and his own contract was not renewed.

The Mail on Sunday knows his identity and it is believed he has an entirely unblemished record.
SDB suspected ... ? knew? :confused:
It was all in Walsh's book about Sky. It's funny to see the newspaper claiming to know the doctor's identity when it was known by anyone who had read that book.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
veganrob said:
I thik the Dr's would notice the blood abnormalities and attempt to find the reason. Froome said they munch all the red blood cells so surely there must have been a low RBC, no? From there they should be able to track down the reason for infection. Not a virus like dawg says. He doesn't even know what his own ilness is. Counterfeit.
Again, this has all been discussed. While the worms do eat red cells, not enough to affect HT. The big problem with blood is antigens, or proteins, released from the eggs can react with and inactive hemoglobin. So in theory, the Hb/HT ratio could be affected, which is something the passport might detect. That's not to say that a passport could reveal schisto, but it might suggest a problem with the blood which would be followed up by tests, including one for schisto. According to at least one of Froome's explanations, he was tested for schisto because there was a lab equipped to do that adjacent to the one where he went for a passport. Hitch has a lot of details on this, maybe he will post them.

But again, as discussed before, Grappe had access to Froome's passport data during periods when he was supposedly hampered by schisto, and claimed there were no abnormalities. Taking that at face value--which unfortunately is something we can never do with anything involving Froome--this would rule out a significant effect of the disease on his oxygen transport system. It might affect him in other ways, but this coming and going during the season for several years, during which period he was getting treated periodically, makes no sense.
Didn't Freeman claim the same after reviewing Froome's passport data?
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
Gung Ho Gun said:
Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible
Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.
It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.
Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!
I don't think I have ever heard someone say another person is telling the truth due to the numerous inconsistencies in their story. It's lying that makes it hard to stay consistent.
 
Robert5091 said:
thehog said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
Link that one for us all, please.
The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.
So, no link?
Nick Harris article from 2014 on Froome and illnesses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2673588/Chris-Froomes-secret-battle-Eight-doctors-six-clinics-four-countries-five-different-illnesses-remarkable-personal-struggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html

Mr & Mrs Froome go through the bilharzia saga (and more) with Kimmage
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
So where in this interview with Nick Harris did he view Froome’s medical records?
 
Robert5091 said:
thehog said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
Link that one for us all, please.
The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.
So, no link?
Nick Harris article from 2014 on Froome and illnesses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2673588/Chris-Froomes-secret-battle-Eight-doctors-six-clinics-four-countries-five-different-illnesses-remarkable-personal-struggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html

Mr & Mrs Froome go through the bilharzia saga (and more) with Kimmage
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
Interesting first article. I had no idea that there were claims to have so many illnesses from Froome.

The article still doesn't make sense. It mentions that he was inundated with health issues during 2010 (when he was more or less autobus fodder), and then still had numerous issues later when he was podiuming GT's?

To some degree, the only thing that makes much sense to me, is that he wasn't doping (or at least not much) in his early days at Sky (maybe they only went all in for riders they deemed of having a chance of winning), but a combination of his own desperation (contract up at the end of 2011) and the interventions of Geert Leinders, bought about the 2nd placed result in the Vuelta. After which time Sky considered Froome to be one of their top dogs, and also assisted with the special treatment.

That still doesn't make a lot of sense, as why would a team as big as Sky, sign a rider in the first place without testing for his full capabilities?

The Armstrong story makes a lot more sense, in that I'm a believer - though not in miracles - that his cancer helped his transformation significantly. His weight loss was so great that it helped to make him a very different rider. That, combined with his own taking advantage of opportunity (a more subdued peleton after the raids in the '98 Tour, and after Pantani's removal from the '99 Giro), and you have one of the more crazy outcomes in sports. Armstrong always doped heavily. He did gain the assistance of the best doctor, but even if he was on everything that he was on in '99, in the mid '90's, could he have climbed Alp Duez in 40 minutes? I don't think so.

The Froome story appears to be much more baffling. If his illnesses left him as autobus fodder, consistently, then why haven't they ever done the same again, when it has mattered?

Maybe Chris has a pretty good sense of humour though.

"Me and the team have followed the rules to a T."

P.S. I think that extra assisting Froome's cause to explain his genuineness to the more causal cycling observer, is that he really wasn't that old when he 'transformed'. He was 27, and maybe still 26, at that Vuelta. He wasn't thirty, and most people know that cyclists take longer to hit their peak. If this had started at the 2014 Vuelta then we'd have more of a Chris Horner level of ridiculousness I guess.
 
gregrowlerson said:
Robert5091 said:
thehog said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
Link that one for us all, please.
The journalist's name is Nick Harris. He's on twitter, you can ask him yourself. Although last time he mentioned it he got abused by the usual suspects so he might not answer.
So, no link?
Nick Harris article from 2014 on Froome and illnesses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2673588/Chris-Froomes-secret-battle-Eight-doctors-six-clinics-four-countries-five-different-illnesses-remarkable-personal-struggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html

Mr & Mrs Froome go through the bilharzia saga (and more) with Kimmage
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
Interesting first article. I had no idea that there were claims to have so many illnesses from Froome.

The article still doesn't make sense. It mentions that he was inundated with health issues during 2010 (when he was more or less autobus fodder), and then still had numerous issues later when he was podiuming GT's?

To some degree, the only thing that makes much sense to me, is that he wasn't doping (or at least not much) in his early days at Sky (maybe they only went all in for riders they deemed of having a chance of winning), but a combination of his own desperation (contract up at the end of 2011) and the interventions of Geert Leinders, bought about the 2nd placed result in the Vuelta. After which time Sky considered Froome to be one of their top dogs, and also assisted with the special treatment.

That still doesn't make a lot of sense, as why would a team as big as Sky, sign a rider in the first place without testing for his full capabilities?

The Armstrong story makes a lot more sense, in that I'm a believer - though not in miracles - that his cancer helped his transformation significantly. His weight loss was so great that it helped to make him a very different rider. That, combined with his own taking advantage of opportunity (a more subdued peleton after the raids in the '98 Tour, and after Pantani's removal from the '99 Giro), and you have one of the more crazy outcomes in sports. Armstrong always doped heavily. He did gain the assistance of the best doctor, but even if he was on everything that he was on in '99, in the mid '90's, could he have climbed Alp Duez in 40 minutes? I don't think so.

The Froome story appears to be much more baffling. If his illnesses left him as autobus fodder, consistently, then why haven't they ever done the same again, when it has mattered?

Maybe Chris has a pretty good sense of humour though.

"Me and the team have followed the rules to a T."

P.S. I think that extra assisting Froome's cause to explain his genuineness to the more causal cycling observer, is that he really wasn't that old when he 'transformed'. He was 27, and maybe still 26, at that Vuelta. He wasn't thirty, and most people know that cyclists take longer to hit their peak. If this had started at the 2014 Vuelta then we'd have more of a Chris Horner level of ridiculousness I guess.
It’s strange that Froome pre-2011 Vuelta never showed his amazing talent. Not once. Additionally his Poland to Vuelta improvement spike is plain strange.
 
Merckx index said:
I’m not questioning that Froome actually contracted schisto. To make that up from whole cloth, he would need to have several doctors in on the lie, and I don’t buy that. Where he quite apparently embellished the story is in the details, and particularly in creating a story that both the disease, and its treatment, severely impacted his performance. This has all the earmarks of a relatively minor episode in his life until, having suddenly become the greatest GT rider in the world, he saw that it made a convenient explanation for his transformation.

Notice that in the quote that fmk posted upthread, which started this renewed discussion of Froome and schisto, Froome actually gave three reasons for his transformation. In addition to schisto, he mentioned 1) the weight loss, and 2) having to stay close to Wiggins, rather than getting in breaks. IOW, it was not a situation when he intentionally did some things in advance that he thought would make him better as much as one when having suddenly greatly improved, he started looking for reasons post facto that he could make public, that allowed him to sidestep doping questions. Those three reasons are not lies, they’re all things that quite apparently happened. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that any or all of them really do much heavy lifting in explaining the transformation.

Brownbobby might be partly correct. Maybe his inconsistencies in the schisto story are partly the result of a poor memory. But the reason his recall would be poor is just because the disease was not a big deal at the time. As others have noted, if this was a really serious matter, he was constantly or periodically feeling ill, of course he would remember exactly when and how he was diagnosed, and other details.

Why was he tested in the first place? Maybe it was a combination of feeling a little sick at the time and passport abnormalities, even if the latter were not enough to trigger a WADA investigation. But it could be something much more mundane. Maybe he always remembered swimming somewhere he could have become infected—wouldn’t anyone from that part of the world be aware of the possibility?--but since he had never had any symptoms, he hadn’t worried about it. But now, as a rider who was frequently being subjected to checkups and who wanted to be on top of his physical condition at all times, he decided he might as well get tested to make sure, even if he wasn’t feeling ill at all (much as someone who is at low but non-zero risk for HIV might not bother to get tested until s/he is entering a sexual relationship with an innocent partner).

Following diagnosis, he took PZQ, like millions of others, but despite what he and Cound said, it’s very unlikely that the immediate effects of the drug prevented him from training for several weeks. That sounds very much like BS, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they weren’t lying, they just didn’t remember very clearly. Maybe minor symptoms over 2-3 days became more severe conditions over 2-3 weeks.

After one treatment, he would have a checkup six months or so later. If there were still some eggs present, he might have another treatment. More than two treatments is very unusual, and as I said before, one of his own doctors remarked on that. So why the further treatments? Without knowing more details, it’s hard to say. Maybe his body was having trouble clearing the eggs, but maybe also by that time, which was post-Vuelta, he exaggerated his case to his doctor so that he could get further treatments he really didn’t need, but which would help the story. But again, there's a simple explanation that doesn't ascribe nefarious intentions to Froome. Maybe he just wanted to be absolutely certain his health was as good as possible, so he wanted the treatments even though he wasn’t feeling sick at that time at all, and probably didn’t need them. If you’re a world class rider, and had these worms at one time, even if the evidence suggests very strongly they’re gone, you might have additional treatments just because there’s no real downside. But having gone through them, he could then point to them as evidence that it took him several years to shake the disease, when in fact it most likely did not.
Now this i can buy...its entirely possible to believe that Froome did indeed have a history of Bilharzia, without buying into the diagnosis and treatment of it being the reason for the transformation.

It seems much more plausible to me that he would latch on to a condition he had suffered with and then conveniently bring it up in an attempt to explain his sudden magical abilities; rather than the notion that he just did a quick google search to come up with a disease that he could use for the excuse.
 
Re: Re:

MikeS369 said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
Gung Ho Gun said:
Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible
Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.
It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.
Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!
I don't think I have ever heard someone say another person is telling the truth due to the numerous inconsistencies in their story. It's lying that makes it hard to stay consistent.
So i guess you either didn't read or choose to ignore my reasoning behind such a statement then.

On the contrary, good liars are often metronomic in their recounting of dates and events to support a lie. It's often this unnatural, practiced robotic consistency which can give them away.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
MikeS369 said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.
It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.
Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!
I don't think I have ever heard someone say another person is telling the truth due to the numerous inconsistencies in their story. It's lying that makes it hard to stay consistent.
So i guess you either didn't read or choose to ignore my reasoning behind such a statement then.

On the contrary, good liars are often metronomic in their recounting of dates and events to support a lie. It's often this unnatural, practiced robotic consistency which can give them away.
And who are you, professor of lying studies at Harvard?
Your make quite the rep as a lawyer.
"Can you explain why your client gave the police 10 different alabis for where he was on the night, sevral of which have been disproved"
"Well liars are usually very good at remembering their lies. So my client must have been telling the truth"
 
Re: Re:

I don't think I have ever heard someone say another person is telling the truth due to the numerous inconsistencies in their story. It's lying that makes it hard to stay consistent.[/quote]

So i guess you either didn't read or choose to ignore my reasoning behind such a statement then.

On the contrary, good liars are often metronomic in their recounting of dates and events to support a lie. It's often this unnatural, practiced robotic consistency which can give them away.[/quote]
And who are you, professor of lying studies at Harvard?
Your make quite the rep as a lawyer.
"Can you explain why your client gave the police 10 different alabis for where he was on the night, sevral of which have been disproved"
"Well liars are usually very good at remembering their lies. So my client must have been telling the truth"[/quote]

This is a forum which invites opinion. I've never been to Harvard and i'm no Professor of anything, but that's not to say i don't have some experience which leads me to form such opinions. I don't however feel the need to demonstrate or discuss said experience here.

For the record, i've never said anyone 'must' be telling the truth because of inconsistencies in the story. What i said is inconsistencies in a story do not always mean a person 'must' be lying.

There's a difference here which is very relevant to the whole Bilharzia discussion.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
 
Re:

deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
 
Re:

deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.

Ah the old, "all possibilities are always exactly equal" defense.

Did oj Simpson kill his wife? Or did the illuminati do it and frame him to make him look guilty and force him to write a book about how he would have done it. All entirely down to ones suspicion and opinion really.

And to back it up. Lets find an absolutely irrelevant example of someone who has a good story and was caught lying, and Not an example of someone who had a *** story but was telling the truth.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?
 
WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
The TV program and the thoughts of the police officer I referenced are available online and can probably be viewed on ITV's internet/catch-up services.
His thoughts on liars and how he spotted them in relation to the Becky Watts murder come quite early in the program so it's worth watching...just thought I'd share a different point of view as it gets like an echo chamber on here otherwise...there's only so much "Sky are ruining cycling...Froome has a motor...the Bilharzia story is a lie" talk before it just looks like a circle jerk in here with all the big hitters patting themselves on the back for their theories...offering up something different is good and also lets me identify those in here with a closed mind and no appetite for discussion...thank you.
 
deviant said:
The TV program and the thoughts of the police officer I referenced are available online and can probably be viewed on ITV's internet/catch-up services.
His thoughts on liars and how he spotted them in relation to the Becky Watts murder come quite early in the program so it's worth watching...just thought I'd share a different point of view as it gets like an echo chamber on here otherwise...there's only so much "Sky are ruining cycling...Froome has a motor...the Bilharzia story is a lie" talk before it just looks like a circle jerk in here with all the big hitters patting themselves on the back for their theories...offering up something different is good and also lets me identify those in here with a closed mind and no appetite for discussion...thank you.
I get what you’re trying to say, but you’re bringing up inconsistencies and vagaries over a period of a couple of days at most. Your defence of Froome’s Badzhilla spiel is relying on inconsistencies over a period of more than a year.

Please, keep things rooted in reality.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
brownbobby said:
deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?
Nope. Came up with this alternative viewpoint all by myself. Go me :cool:

Guess that means Deviant must have too. Two people, without consulatation, both having similar thoughts that don't necessarily echo the majority. Incredible eh?!

I don't recall either of us mentioning the word or theory of 'proof' in any of our posts, just alternative theories for discussion.

Look forward to your next overly aggressive response which aims to belittle me or anyone else for daring to challenge the status quo on here.

It's ok, i don't take it personally, its just an internet forum after all
 
Re:

42x16ss said:
WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:

I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY