darwin553 said: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.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
darwin553 said:I agree with this but Froome at the level he is at would still have Nibali's measure.
Red Lobster said:No, I explained above what I meant. Reading is fundamental.
Red Lobster said:We have such evidence, and it has been repeated many times above, but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss it.
BYOP88 said:Do Sky pay better than USPS did?
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.Snafu352 said: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.
Snafu352 said: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?
darwin553 said:Is this not a summary view of your 'reading' of the thread??
Red Lobster said: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?
thehog said:
darwin553 said:I thought you spoke for the general consensus of the thread??
Snafu352 said: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?
Red Lobster said:Sigh. No. I explained above. Please reread.
Red Lobster said:We have such evidence, and it has been repeated many times above, but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss it.
Red Lobster said:"We" is referring those participating on the forum: you, me, the hog, darwin, et al.
UlisesLima said:There is evidence to suggest that he is doping. Even if he isn't doping, there is evidence to suggest that he is.
rhubroma said:I'm just not inclined to share it with you. I love the fact that you are dying in your own doubt.
Snafu352 said:So no answer to my earlier question? Why would WADA getting all the teams data be a bad thing?
Snafu352 said: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.
darwin553 said: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?
Snafu352 said: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 said: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.
Snafu352 said:....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.
....
Red Lobster said: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."