Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[ToreBear]

Which hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions? Froome is doping, or Froome is clean?

In the old days, things we didn't understand we labeled as magic.

Apple dropping from a tree? Magic
You dare to assume the earth is round? Magic. Burn the heretic!

It's much more easy on the mind to assume that all we do not understand is magic, or in this case doping.


Just because something takes a little more thought, and perhaps assumptions doesn't mean it is wrong.

 

[thehog]

If Walsh would be in other opinion, would you say the same?

Wiggins is for me quite naive and crazy. He hate all the doppers, he has been always like that, a freak of antidoping, as well there are freaks of "Star Wars" or the "Lord of the rings", so he did that with Landis and give him zero credibility.

When the evidence with Lance was total, he did the same with him... in Spain, a lot of people as Rubiera, Samu or Contador (he changed his words little bit later) didnt.

Anyway this is a Froome talk only thread, so sorry about, but he mentioned him, so I consider right to clarify my point.

Digger is actually right.

If people knew the real reason Walsh asked the Landis questioned you'd be shocked.

But enough of that for the time being.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Except where several similar cases in the past were scientifically proven to be "magic".

We didn't have Riccò hanged for looking shady. Riccò tested positive. That isn't magic, that's science. Which is the opposite of magic.

It isn't necessarily wrong to think Froome is clean, just requires more faith than the alternative. However, painting it in a way that conflates believing Froome to be clean with the great scientific minds of human history, and conflates believing Froome to be dirty with unenlightened mass thought, is disingenuous, and in fact more incorrect than the opposite. For case history has shown us that it is, in fact, those who are believing Froome to be clean, who are the ones who are representative of the previous norm, for scientific advances have, in fact, explained away all of the similar phenomena in years past, through the medium of positive doping tests. With every similar transformation having been proven to have been due to doping, is it really those who say that "as every similar transformation has been proven to be doping, therefore the pattern suggests that this will be doping" that are representative of the previous, pre-science "blind faith" position, and not those who say "even though every other transformation was due to doping, Chris Froome is not those other people so I believe in him until proven otherwise"? Both of these are perfectly reasonable suppositions.

If you want to compare the doubters unfavourably to somebody appropriate to your science/magic/religion analogy, then perhaps the supporters of Richard Dawkins, who've turned atheism into a religion in its own right, of which they are zealots, would be a better comparison. It's downright insulting to consider that those who doubt Froome belong along with those who do not question and accept what they are taught, explaining away what they do not understand as "magic", when really such blind faith is much more readily associated with those who do not, or more appropriate those who will not question.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Except where several similar cases in the past were scientifically proven to be "magic".

We didn't have Riccò hanged for looking shady. Riccò tested positive. That isn't magic, that's science. Which is the opposite of magic.

It isn't necessarily wrong to think Froome is clean, just requires more faith than the alternative. However, painting it in a way that conflates believing Froome to be clean with the great scientific minds of human history, and conflates believing Froome to be dirty with unenlightened mass thought, is disingenuous, and in fact more incorrect than the opposite. For case history has shown us that it is, in fact, those who are believing Froome to be clean, who are the ones who are representative of the previous norm, for scientific advances have, in fact, explained away all of the similar phenomena in years past, through the medium of positive doping tests. With every similar transformation having been proven to have been due to doping, is it really those who say that "as every similar transformation has been proven to be doping, therefore the pattern suggests that this will be doping" that are representative of the previous, pre-science "blind faith" position, and not those who say "even though every other transformation was due to doping, Chris Froome is not those other people so I believe in him until proven otherwise"? Both of these are perfectly reasonable suppositions.

If you want to compare the doubters unfavourably to somebody appropriate to your science/magic/religion analogy, then perhaps the supporters of Richard Dawkins, who've turned atheism into a religion in its own right, of which they are zealots, would be a better comparison. It's downright insulting to consider that those who doubt Froome belong along with those who do not question and accept what they are taught, explaining away what they do not understand as "magic", when really such blind faith is much more readily associated with those who do not, or more appropriate those who will not question.

LS, more than anything else i commend you for your staying power in this thread. 6.00 ish w/kg for sure

 

[thehog]

Except where several similar cases in the past were scientifically proven to be "magic".

We didn't have Riccò hanged for looking shady. Riccò tested positive. That isn't magic, that's science. Which is the opposite of magic.

It isn't necessarily wrong to think Froome is clean, just requires more faith than the alternative. However, painting it in a way that conflates believing Froome to be clean with the great scientific minds of human history, and conflates believing Froome to be dirty with unenlightened mass thought, is disingenuous, and in fact more incorrect than the opposite. For case history has shown us that it is, in fact, those who are believing Froome to be clean, who are the ones who are representative of the previous norm, for scientific advances have, in fact, explained away all of the similar phenomena in years past, through the medium of positive doping tests. With every similar transformation having been proven to have been due to doping, is it really those who say that "as every similar transformation has been proven to be doping, therefore the pattern suggests that this will be doping" that are representative of the previous, pre-science "blind faith" position, and not those who say "even though every other transformation was due to doping, Chris Froome is not those other people so I believe in him until proven otherwise"? Both of these are perfectly reasonable suppositions.

If you want to compare the doubters unfavourably to somebody appropriate to your science/magic/religion analogy, then perhaps the supporters of Richard Dawkins, who've turned atheism into a religion in its own right, of which they are zealots, would be a better comparison. It's downright insulting to consider that those who doubt Froome belong along with those who do not question and accept what they are taught, explaining away what they do not understand as "magic", when really such blind faith is much more readily associated with those who do not, or more appropriate those who will not question.

I'm not sure anyone thinks he's clean. They just want more evidence before condemning him as a doper. No one is going stick their necks out and say Froome is clean. That's way too far of a leap of faith.

Except Taxhus5.

 

[kingjr]

Froome is clean.

 

[ebandit]

faith

I'm not sure anyone thinks he's clean. They just want more evidence before condemning him as a doper. No one is going stick their necks out and say Froome is clean. That's way too far of a leap of faith.

Except Taxhus5.

conversely no-one should label froomey a doper without evidence

in the overblown post above from LS faith is mentioned it's not about faith
we deserve facts.................enough people must know the truth so in time
we will too

Mark L

 

[Taxus4a]

Froome is clean.

To be sure of something in life is maybe impossible, but I have quite clear Froome is clean (the same for most of the riders). But that is just my personal opinion. I just try to analyse with what we have and see.

I am only sure today is posible to win a GT clean, and that was impossible in the past, even if today doping has some extend with little blood doping/EPO or new products (Aicar and GW-1415 are detectable). It is not 100 % clean, I am sure about that as well

It would be nice if most of the people think in the way that need more evidence to believe him clean.

The environment I have suffered wasnt that way.

 

[ToreBear]

Except where several similar cases in the past were scientifically proven to be "magic".

We didn't have Riccò hanged for looking shady. Riccò tested positive. That isn't magic, that's science. Which is the opposite of magic.

It isn't necessarily wrong to think Froome is clean, just requires more faith than the alternative. However, painting it in a way that conflates believing Froome to be clean with the great scientific minds of human history, and conflates believing Froome to be dirty with unenlightened mass thought, is disingenuous, and in fact more incorrect than the opposite. For case history has shown us that it is, in fact, those who are believing Froome to be clean, who are the ones who are representative of the previous norm, for scientific advances have, in fact, explained away all of the similar phenomena in years past, through the medium of positive doping tests. With every similar transformation having been proven to have been due to doping, is it really those who say that "as every similar transformation has been proven to be doping, therefore the pattern suggests that this will be doping" that are representative of the previous, pre-science "blind faith" position, and not those who say "even though every other transformation was due to doping, Chris Froome is not those other people so I believe in him until proven otherwise"? Both of these are perfectly reasonable suppositions.

If you want to compare the doubters unfavourably to somebody appropriate to your science/magic/religion analogy, then perhaps the supporters of Richard Dawkins, who've turned atheism into a religion in its own right, of which they are zealots, would be a better comparison. It's downright insulting to consider that those who doubt Froome belong along with those who do not question and accept what they are taught, explaining away what they do not understand as "magic", when really such blind faith is much more readily associated with those who do not, or more appropriate those who will not question.

You are making me dizzy. Too much information and arguments mixed together with an unclear formatting. Have you by any chance watched yes minister? The top bureaucrat has lines which resemble what you wrote. I have to admit it is late and my mind has left me somewhat.

My argument is simple. Which scenario requires less mental energy?

A. Explaining how Froome has became as good as he has without doping.
B. Explaining how Froome has become as good as he has with doping.

For me B. is much easier. But is the fact that it is easier indicative of B being more correct than A?


To decouple this from thoughts of Froome, do the same exercise for the winner of the Tour de Suisse, Rui Costa.

a. Explaining how Costa has became as good as he has without doping.
b. Explaining how Costa has become as good as he has with doping.

For me again b is the easy option. But again, is the fact that it's easier to construct a scenario of Costas results being due to doping indicative that he is doping?

In both cases I would say no.

 

[ferryman]

Porte cant do that. I think he is strong, but in this Tour at least, IMO: Froome, Evans, Hesjedal, Purito and Valverde are stronger in the mountains, and maybe Contador, Mollema, Andy, JVdB, Quintana and Pinot, these two last ones, for sure in one day. Even Dan Martin, Kreuziger and Tejay could be similar. And maybe I miss some people...

One day Porte could be amazing, but not everyday, he is improving a lot and who knows, but now that is my opinion, this is not Ospedale or Nice.

A flawed response as the only time (and that will be a helluva lot of time) we will see Porte in the mountains will be him riding (super) tempo to probably drop all of those guys you think are stronger. The bold on the other hand tells me all.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You are making me dizzy. Too much information and arguments mixed together with an unclear formatting. Have you by any chance watched yes minister? The top bureaucrat has lines which resemble what you wrote. I have to admit it is late and my mind has left me somewhat.

My argument is simple. Which scenario requires less mental energy?

A. Explaining how Froome has became as good as he has without doping.
B. Explaining how Froome has become as good as he has with doping.

For me B. is much easier. But is the fact that it is easier indicative of B being more correct than A?


To decouple this from thoughts of Froome, do the same exercise for the winner of the Tour de Suisse, Rui Costa.

a. Explaining how Costa has became as good as he has without doping.
b. Explaining how Costa has become as good as he has with doping.

For me again b is the easy option. But again, is the fact that it's easier to construct a scenario of Costas results being due to doping indicative that he is doping?

In both cases I would say no.

Your use of the concept of "magic" conflated the idea of considering Froome being dirty as "received knowledge" in much the same way as science pre-Newton or pre-Galileo. It implicitly linked the idea of thinking Froome dirty with pre-enlightenment thought, based on faith in some vague intangible just as those pre-Newton and pre-Galileo believed "magic" to be behind gravity, and accepted on blind faith the church's proclamations that the sun revolved around the earth.

But doping is not some vague concept like "magic". You can't test positive for "magic". "Magic" can't be scientifically proven. Doping can. The naïve ones are those who refuse to entertain doping as a justification. The vultures of the Clinic are more like those who are overly cynical, not like those who attack those who challenge received knowledge as heretics.

The (non-trolling) people within the Clinic who believe Froome is clean may be swimming against the tide, but there's no need to martyr them.

 

[thehog]

conversely no-one should label froomey a doper without evidence

in the overblown post above from LS faith is mentioned it's not about faith
we deserve facts.................enough people must know the truth so in time
we will too

Mark L

Conversely no one should label the Dawg clean without giving good reason.

We deserve facts to know why he's clean.

I've not heard any. Just a lot of noise telling us that there's no proof of doping.

I want hear the reasons why Fromme is clean.

The silence is deafening.

 

[del1962]

Your use of the concept of "magic" conflated the idea of considering Froome being dirty as "received knowledge" in much the same way as science pre-Newton or pre-Galileo. It implicitly linked the idea of thinking Froome dirty with pre-enlightenment thought, based on faith in some vague intangible just as those pre-Newton and pre-Galileo believed "magic" to be behind gravity, and accepted on blind faith the church's proclamations that the sun revolved around the earth.

But doping is not some vague concept like "magic". You can't test positive for "magic". "Magic" can't be scientifically proven. Doping can. The naïve ones are those who refuse to entertain doping as a justification. The vultures of the Clinic are more like those who are overly cynical, not like those who attack those who challenge received knowledge as heretics.

The (non-trolling) people within the Clinic who believe Froome is clean may be swimming against the tide, but there's no need to martyr them.

Basically your are implying that ppl who think Froome could be clean are generally trolls, it is postions like that that make me think your are trolling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Basically your are implying that ppl who think Froome could be clean are generally trolls, it is postions like that that make me think your are trolling.

No - LS did not imply, they made a distinction.
But this post and your previous post confirm you are trolling.

 

[hrotha]

Basically your are implying that ppl who think Froome could be clean are generally trolls, it is postions like that that make me think your are trolling.

And people calling LS a troll when he spends a long time crafting well-written and thought-out posts is what makes me think people don't even know what a troll is anymore. Stop throwing the word around goddammit.

 

[del1962]

No - LS did not imply, they made a distinction.
But this post and your previous post confirm you are trolling.

I am not trolling, I am pointing out the general sense within the clinic that any who disagree with their wisdom are said to be trolls, and what I am doing is turning it on them.

And just because a post is "well crafted" it does not mean it can't contain trolling, but I guess in my response to LS I have challenged one of the "oracles" of the clinic

 

[Afrank]

Basically your are implying that ppl who think Froome could be clean are generally trolls, it is postions like that that make me think your are trolling.

How do you get that LS is implying those people trolls when she says the non-trolling people in the clinic that think Froome is clean are swimming against the tide? This is a true statment, if you argue Froome is clean you'll face a larger margin of people who will argue he's not.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am not trolling, I am pointing out the general sense within the clinic that any who disagree with their wisdom are said to be trolls, and what I am doing is turning it on them.

Which has nothing to do with LS or their post.

And just because a post is "well crafted" it does not mean it can't contain trolling, but I guess in my response to LS I have challenged one of the "oracles" of the clinic

This is trolling - LS was correct, you are wrong. Simple.

 

[the sceptic]

stop quoting del 1962 posts please

 

[Taxus4a]

Conversely no one should label the Dawg clean without giving good reason.

We deserve facts to know why he's clean.

I've not heard any. Just a lot of noise telling us that there's no proof of doping.

I want hear the reasons why Fromme is clean.

The silence is deafening.

Give me the evidence of any rider is clean.

Choose the rider you want and tell us the evidence why he is clean.


I think del 1962 did a mistake with LSn (but maybe I miss something), but anyway he did a good reflection about what a lot of forum members do: consider trolling if you swim againts the tide and you think Froome and SKy could be clean (or think are clean)

But anyway: relax to everybody.

I have said how I see this, and I will try don't post a lot, even if that means don't answer some quote, something I dont like.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Basically your are implying that ppl who think Froome could be clean are generally trolls, it is postions like that that make me think your are trolling.

No, it is drawing a distinction between people who think Froome is clean - or wish to give him the benefit of the doubt until further evidence comes to light - and converse accordingly (example: JimmyFingers), and those who troll the Clinic by posting pro-Sky/pro-Froome talking points with the clear intent of winding up and derailing (example: Joachim). I wish to distinguish civil and discursive posters whose opinions are in the minority and who I don't necessarily agree with but have respect for the positions of, from disruptive and argumentative posters whose sole intent is to start arguments and turn discourse into an us-vs-them battleground.

 

[Granville57]

And people calling LS a troll when he spends a long time crafting well-written and thought-out posts...

You're being chauvinistic without even realizing it.

She's smarter than the rest of us. It's that simple.

 

[Taxus4a]

No, it is drawing a distinction between people who think Froome is clean - or wish to give him the benefit of the doubt until further evidence comes to light - and converse accordingly (example: JimmyFingers), and those who troll the Clinic by posting pro-Sky/pro-Froome talking points with the clear intent of winding up and derailing (example: Joachim). I wish to distinguish civil and discursive posters whose opinions are in the minority and who I don't necessarily agree with but have respect for the positions of, from disruptive and argumentative posters whose sole intent is to start arguments and turn discourse into an us-vs-them battleground.

But you understand that in the other group there are the same kind of people as you point Joachim (I dont Know his posts, so I dont have an opinion)

Are you from Torrelavega or Cantabria?

 

[hrotha]

You're being chauvinistic without even realizing it.

She's smarter than the rest of us. It's that simple.

Slip of the tongue. I don't think of LS as either a he or a she.

 

[ferryman]

Give me the evidence of any rider is clean.

Choose the rider you want and tell us the evidence why he is clean.


I think del 1962 did a mistake with LS, but anyway he did a good reflection about what lot of forums members do: consider trolling if you swim againts the tide and you think Froome and SKy could be clean (or think are clean)

But anyway: relax to everybody.

I have said how I see this, and I will try don't post a lot, even if that means don't answer some quote, something I dont like.

Are you real. I give you Froome and Sky. Who you have been continually been defending/deflecting and all the rest since your recent onslaught on here. I see you.

At the same time at every stroke trying to dis Contador.