martinvickers said:
It ain't so. Or at least, what you are saying is not what I said.
I've said it often enough before, past performance is not an indication of future returns. You are mixing up statistics and probabilities.
No, you can use statistics to get to set a probability. If I drop a stone a 100 time, what's the probability it also drops the 101 time? Observation. A scientific tool.
No, it's faith. You simply can't predict the future of any one person simply by looking at the past of others. It's just not a logical position, however attractive it is to your instincts.
Nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. I am not prdicting the future (nice strawman, care to take it down?), I am actually comparing past events. Froome's ascent is not something in the future, the whole problem here is that it is already happening.
Sorry Martin, I react very badly on strawman and this one deserves deep scorn. I suspect you are smart enough to realize I try to compare things which are undisputed facts.
My views on Froome, Wiggins and Sky are pretty well known; but views are ALL they are. And I've looked at the same numbers, and read the same books, and watched the same videos as everyone else. They are still views. No more. And not, on their own, anything like enough.
Enough for what? I destroyed this strawman, thus what is there left to cling to? Are you saying you are deluding yourself as you don't dare to draw the logical conclusions.
I think that you fall into the trap of many others: This is not a court of law. If this was a court of law I would agree, we haven't got anything on Sky (Brailsford deserves a punishment, but both UCI as BC are spineless cowards).
It's impossible to prove they're clean, because you can't prove a negative, end of story, and in any event the information base is too scant.
I knew someone would bring this up
But there is of course a way and Wiggins once wanted to go that way: Post the neccesary medical records, be transparent in your actions.
It's sad you refuse to acknowledge there isn't away to go foprward and instead defend the status quo.
But you can't prove them dirty either - there is nothing like enough evidence to conclude that, however much some people wish there was. All you can do is keep watching, keep testing, nd keep applying pressure to get anti-doping increased.
And full marks for you. We can not and should not prosecute just because of a statitical likelihood or suspicion.
But this is not a court of law.
I'll conclude with only one thing. I think it is entirely reasonable, and understandable to fear that Sky dope, or to suspect they dope.
But there are quite a few here, and i don't necessarily include you, Franklin, but quite a few who don't fear or suspect they dope.
They hope they dope. And that is really a rather different, and rather less noble thing.
Agreed. The antipathy Wiggins evokes is reason for people to hope he doped and get's caught. Bias from the other side. I do not agree with it, indeed I hope fiercely they are clean!
But that does not change the data we all have access to.