Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[BYOP88]

1. Ball, not man.

2. The threats were described on this forum only a few posts ago. As you well know.

3. You've got cause and effect the wrong way round. If my *** smells better, it's not because of my profession. More likely, I'm in my profession because my *** smells better. Whatever the hell that means, since I clearly never implied my *** smells better.

4. I don't mind acerbic. Acerbic suggests sharp. What I'd object to is blunt trollery.

5. If you are offended on my position that there is no moral equivalence between a sarcastic tweet on an acknowledged ex doper, and rape and murder threats, that's an offence I'm just going to have to learn to live with. I'm pretty sure i'll manage.

How do you know what I've read or haven't read on these forums? Surely in your line of work, you need facts not wild guesses in the dark?

I'm not suggesting BYOP actually indulged in it, only that I think he's a bit blazé about it, purely because he doesn't really like the victim much.

Again a wild guess?

So because I'm not a fan of someone, in your mind/world that means I want them raped and murdered or don't have a problem with people issuing those threats?

 

[red_flanders]

Some posters claim that releasing data would not help Froome nor Sky.

Imagine what an image Sky and Froome would paint if they truly were transparent, and not only released some data, but let all of us download all the data, ranging from blood values, v02, srm etc. So one could comment on it and ask important questions. That would not only be transparancy but setting the baseline for other teams to do the same. Open Source it if you're being serious about the clean peloton statement, or takenthe heat, and deal with it.

Another thing I still haven't understood is Froome's bilzahria illness. What is the treatment, who treated him, how many times, what does the treatment do tonhis blood values, his body and fitness ? Facts ?

I have a very hard time understanding M.Cound and the way she would go off on twitter like that. To me it is not only unprofessional by her but by the team managing Froome. Froome and Sky laying name to a woman whose shoots at everything and clearly has no sense of how to act with the media. What is Sky saying about this ? If nothing, it's so amateur'ish and even worse than the russian over at Tinkov.

As to the transformation with Froome, it is a serious matter and it strikes me, that not a single media is digging harder into this. Ask questions, demand answers. It sometimes leave me thinking that we should all pitch into a kickstarter.com project which goal merely should be to fund a journo going to races and ask questions.

Goo night gents

Great idea and excellent post all 'round.

 

[Merckx index]

With Pinottis jump I didn´t mean going from 18 to 9, but going from averge 68th (pre his 30s) to 18th to 9th, to public statement at 36; "I go for a T-10".
Froome OTOH jumped from average 60th to 2nd in his low 20s. Is that unusual? ****ing yeah. But unprecedented? No.
What about Lagutin going from back fodder (104, 91) to only 9 mins down on the final CG winner in a super hard GT aged 29 3/4?

So your whole argument hangs on the presumption that a gigantic, very sudden change in performance in one’s mid (not low) 20s is no more suspect than a considerably smaller, more gradual change one makes when somewhat older. Because as we all know, everyone peaks at the exact same age, no exceptions.

And you measure performance jumps not by power numbers but by CQ points or GT placings--and even by public statements! I guess we all greatly underestimated how good Simoni was, because he said he was going to destroy Armstrong before one of the TDFs. Can we give Contador credit for winning the TDF last year? He said it was his goal, so I guess he was good enough to win it.

This is the same Foxxy who would jump all over a poster in the nfl thread if that poster judged a team’s offense by total offense stats rather than by YPP. Who goes into great statistical detail to show that one of the most revered QBs of all time is not as good as most people think he is. Using CQ points and GT placings to measure performance.

 

[red_flanders]

I think it's long time we all stopped engaging people who are making consistently nonsensical arguments. Clearly no rational thought is going to make a difference, and offering such just provides a platform for more nonsense.

 

[martinvickers]

How do you know what I've read or haven't read on these forums? Surely in your line of work, you need facts not wild guesses in the dark?


So because I'm not a fan of someone, in your mind/world that means I want them raped and murdered or don't have a problem with people issuing those threats?

Strawman, and not even a clever one.

You equated a sarcastic tweet with the rape threats - "she said sh!te, she got sh!te back" - as if there's some form of equality between the two. As I said, Blazé. I doubt you would (indeed, i hope you wouldn't) take that attitude if the threats were made against someone you cared about.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Not only is it cherry picking. Here's my analysis of your analysis:

1. Froome went to 2nd in his low 20s. Um no. 26 1/3 is not low 20s. It's mid twenties at least.
2. Froome's GT was (implied) a "normal hardness" GT. Um no. It's exactly the same GT Lagutin finished 9 minutes down on, the one you label "super hard".
3. You compare average position to absolute position. Um. No. Compare averages, or compare absolutes. % improvement, etc isn't working too well, imo.
4. You feel it pertinent to add 3/4 to Lagutin's age, but miss off the 1/3 for Froome's.
5. You compare average position for Lagutin, to absolute time from winner as indication of improvement. Um. What the feck dude. That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to pink VW automobiles.
6. Your idea of a "super hard GT" is somewhat ... interesting. For my money, a GT's hardness would be evidenced in how closely the top ~20 riders finished together, assuming there are 20 teams, and their leaders are all vying for top placings. In 2011, top 20 ended 20 minutes down at the Vuelta. In the 2013 Tour, which Froome won by over 4 minutes, top 20 is over 40 minutes down. (Granted some teams are there for non-GC reasons, obviously, but I'd like to see at least some form of definition for GT difficulty before accepting your labeling of same).

Your analysis needs work.

Let me start with you (b/c Libertine is more founded, harder to pick apart, good job by him).

OMG !!! (super short summary)

The longer version;
1. Your point. Let´s call it mid 20s, or more prescicely mid+alittlebitabovetwentyfive20s
2. When did I say normal hardness? My english is bad, sometimes "fighting" to find words... but "normal hardness"? WTF, not my trademark. Please stop your habbit of doing posts implying I said this and that when I didn´t. I like fair discussions (take Libertine as blueprint) w/o lies.
3. I compare the comparable. When I make the point rider XY improved soundso average spots, it´s the same as putting up going from 113-52-48-60 to 18. If my way is to difficult for you, not my problem...
4. So how much did you or I gain in the hair splitting contest? Half a year. Go and take it. Get lost in the woods instead of seeing the whole picture...
5. Yeah Feck...
OTOH, the intelligent member gets my point why I used 9 mins. I explained it already yesterday. It might favour my point a little, but the 9 mins implies that the T-18 where as close together as seldom before. The 5th could have been 15th and visa versa... But your comparison to pink VW is nonsense and you know it.
6. How you categorize hardness is not my problem but yours. If that edition had 15 climbs of category 1 or HC, I´d call that hard. If the whole edition had 49 categorized climbs, I´d call that hard. If riders said it was one of the hardest GTs they ever did, I´d call that hard. If the laterne rouge finishes almost 5 1/2 hrs down to the winner (5.24.52 only for you my dear hair splitter) I´d call that hard. If no less than 6 riders finish 5+ hrs down to the winner, I´d call that hard, especially seen in context that most GTs of the past 20 years had a laterne rouge with less than 5 hrs down (on average I would estimate 4 1/2 hrs; may you can look yourself the excat numbers, good luck wasting your time, you won´t prove me wrong).

 

[martinvickers]

I think it's long time we all stopped engaging people who are making consistently nonsensical arguments. Clearly no rational thought is going to make a difference, and offering such just provides a platform for more nonsense.

And you are the Oracle on what those are?

 

[martinvickers]

Great idea and excellent post all 'round.

Is this going to be ANOTHER Kimmage fund? Let's keep Aaron away from it this time

 

[HSNHSN]

I think it's long time we all stopped engaging people who are making consistently nonsensical arguments. Clearly no rational thought is going to make a difference, and offering such just provides a platform for more nonsense.

I got the impression more and more posters are already doing that.

Dear Wiggo, thanks for the mentioning of pink VW automobiles. I must remember that one.

 

[BYOP88]

Strawman, and not even a clever one.

Dang! I guess we all can't be lawyer smart I guess I'll have to settle for being a Doctor or something, you know where my lack of 'cleverness' wont hold me back.

You equated a sarcastic tweet with the rape threats - "she said sh!te, she got sh!te back" - as if there's some form of equality between the two. As I said, Blazé. I doubt you would (indeed, i hope you wouldn't) take that attitude if the threats were made against someone you cared about.

As someone who's in the public eye because she's happens to be going out with someone who's 'famous', shouldn't she be aware that what she tweets/posts on FB/Forums/Blogs etc is going to be read by more people because of her relationship with a 'famous' person and may not always be meet with positive responses? If she posts a 'sarcastic' remark on a topic that is going to make the **** hit the fan she should expect **** back.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So your whole argument hangs on the presumption that a gigantic, very sudden change in performance in one’s mid (not low) 20s is no more suspect than a considerably smaller, more gradual change one makes when somewhat older. Because as we all know, everyone peaks at the exact same age, no exceptions.

And you measure performance jumps not by power numbers but by CQ points or GT placings--and even by public statements! I guess we all greatly underestimated how good Simoni was, because he said he was going to destroy Armstrong before one of the TDFs. Can we give Contador credit for winning the TDF last year? He said it was his goal, so I guess he was good enough to win it.

This is the same Foxxy who would jump all over a poster in the nfl thread if that poster judged a team’s offense by total offense stats rather than by YPP. Who goes into great statistical detail to show that one of the most revered QBs of all time is not as good as most people think he is. Using CQ points and GT placings to measure performance.

Merckx, Merckx, Merckx
Cool down, see the obvious. I repeat: I didn´t start with the CQ points. Of course I know it´s utter BS to make a serious study on the basis of this. I just used the same numbers one rider gets flak for in the other direction. The max one can get out of this points are trends. Trends that have been there before Froome... I repeat: Trends, no exact science with one final truth that can withstand hair splitting contests. That´s not my point...

You know it, I know it, everybody knows it: GT riders showed talent early until circa 1990. It just didn´t happen that 30 year olds never been seen before in the lead group on mountain stages start to finish in T-10s. So yes, Pinottis rise is as unusal as Froomes. I don´t favour one over the other. Actually for me it´s more plausible that a 26.3126953 old rider improves stark, who just hit the WT scence at age 23.1953574 (thus unable to show talent at age 22 in a GT), than a "pampered" cyclist who learned his bike handling skills since youth in a well infrastructured europe road cycling scene...

Do you have exact power numbers for all riders in question? Do you? Of course you don´t. So all we can do is working with the results we have and make comparisons... No exact science, but better than nothing.

A non T-10 contender would never come and say "I go for it". So what you wanna tell me with the LA, Simoni, AC comparisons? That a guy over estimates his chances. Sure that happens, and it happened to Pinotti. The point in context was: Some poster said Pinotti wasn´t transforming into a GT contender, I proved otherwise. No exact science here, but Pinotti really believed (and showed it twice at an average age of estimated 33.96547743) that he indeed transformed into a CG rider above age 30...

Yeah, and we have guys here too who think total stats are better than efficiency stats (hello my DearWiggo )... and you know that final CG placings havbe a very strong correlation to minutes behind the winner. So instead of sifting trou the internet if the 41st rider of GT XYZ was down 53 mins or 58, I go for the easier to find number; placing in the GT... no exact science, but better than nothing, and the best we can get to see trends... and wayyy better than career total CQ points stats that tell you:... nothing

 

[BYOP88]

Strawman, and not even a clever one.

Dang! I guess we all can't be lawyer smart I guess I'll have to settle for being a Doctor or something, you know where my lack of 'cleverness' wont hold me back.

You equated a sarcastic tweet with the rape threats - "she said sh!te, she got sh!te back" - as if there's some form of equality between the two. As I said, Blazé. I doubt you would (indeed, i hope you wouldn't) take that attitude if the threats were made against someone you cared about.

As someone who's in the public eye because she happens to be going out with someone who's 'famous', she must be aware that what she tweets/posts on FB/Forums/Blogs etc is going to be read by more people because of her relationship with a 'famous' person and may not always be meet with positive responses? If she posts a 'sarcastic' remark on a topic that is going to make the **** hit the fan she should expect **** back. Granted some of the **** she got was way over the line and needs to be dealt with and quickly by the authorities because it was not acceptable.

 

[The Hitch]

And you are the Oracle on what those are?

He's been one of the most widely respected posters on the forum for years, before the Sky controversy started even. That counts for something.

I remember a few weeks ago you used a "It doesn't make sense" argument when talking about Tyson Gay.

To cut a long story short, a half decent experienced doper, happily winning medals and avoiding positives for a decade, doesn't make this sort of frankly amateur c0ck up and then just fess up to it. It doesn't make sense.

I was very surprised because when it comes to Wiggins and Froome and people pointing out holes in their story, you totally reject those, and portray yourself as the - evidence or nothing lawyer type. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, martinvickers won't budge an inch until there is actual evidence.

Yet here you were, when it suited you, forgoing the evidence - which said Gay doped, and basing your opinion, conveniently, on what "makes sense".

So since you do seem to be willing to employ logic to arguments on occasion after all, why don't you employ it here.

Pinotti scored less points in 16 years than Froome did in 24 months. He top 10'd one gt in his life.

Are those who are trying to push the narrative that Pinotti is as suspicious as Froome making "consistently nonsensical arguments".

if you employ the common logic here the way you did re Tyson Gay, you should reach the same conclusion the rest of us have, and save everyone the meta discussion.

 

[martinvickers]

Dang! I guess we all can't be lawyer smart I guess I'll have to settle for being a Doctor or something, you know where my lack of 'cleverness' wont hold me back.

Doctor's don't need to be particularly clever, though many are. They need an excellent memory and calmness under pressure. Two traits particularly useful for exams generally as it happens, and science/maths exams in particular. All the intelligence in the world won't save you if you don't do the yards.

Whereas, in some humanities subjects, you can bluff very well so long as you have a core understanding and/or insight. But memorising shakespeare is pointless without understanding it.

(Most lawyers (but not myself, oddly), at least here (NI), tend to come from 'humanities' stock; A-levels/leaving in English, History, etc...languages. Frustrated novelists, most of 'em.)

Intelligence and Memory. The talents often overlap, but aren't synonomous.

As for my being smart? I do o.k. I've met smarter. I've met less smart. Much like everyone else.

As someone who's in the public eye because she happens to be going out with someone who's 'famous', she must be aware that what she tweets/posts on FB/Forums/Blogs etc is going to be read by more people because of her relationship with a 'famous' person and may not always be meet with positive responses? If she posts a 'sarcastic' remark on a topic that is going to make the **** hit the fan she should expect **** back. Granted some of the **** she got was way over the line and needs to be dealt with and quickly by the authorities because it was not acceptable.

You say exactly this in the first place, we don't even have this discussion.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2. When did I say normal hardness? My english is bad, sometimes "fighting" to find words... but "normal hardness"? WTF, not my trademark. Please stop your habbit of doing posts implying I said this and that when I didn´t. I like fair discussions (take Libertine as blueprint) w/o lies.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with your other "compare the comparable" points.

I would like to understand this point above though.

You found the words "super hard GT" for Lagutin's 15th place, but did not apply them to Froome's 2nd place, despite it being the same GT.

In fact, reading what you wrote, they sounded like two entirely different GTs.

This does not look like English vs German or "trouble finding the words" to me. It looks like you are constructing an argument and leaving out some points for one side vs the other.

Here's what you wrote, removing unnecessary parts:

Froome <> jumped from average 60th to 2nd in his low 20s. <>. But unprecedented? No.

What about Lagutin going from back fodder (104, 91) to only 9 mins down on the final CG winner in a super hard GT aged 29 3/4?

But the reality is:

Froome and Lagutin were pack fodder, then Froome jumped to 2nd, 13 seconds down, and Lagutin jumped to 15th, 9 minutes down, in the same super hard GT.

In your argument, you appear to be saying this jump is comparable, or provides enough precedent to not be unusual per se. Is that right?

I am sincerely asking for clarification, and feel the words are not the missing thing, but the construction of the argument.

 

[the sceptic]

I think it's long time we all stopped engaging people who are making consistently nonsensical arguments. Clearly no rational thought is going to make a difference, and offering such just provides a platform for more nonsense.

Agreed. I have most of them on ignore, but sometimes its just too tempting to argue even though I know there is no point.

 

[Granville57]

The Clinic is a cesspool of speculation, conjecture, guess, hypothesis, supposition, surmise, theory, bias, uniformed opinion, sarcasm, insults

...and wordy descriptions.

Come on Hitch. You seriously cannot be saying the Clinic is a bastion of objectivity and reason, providing objective factual information about doping in cycling?

And you hold yourself out as a journalist with integrity?

Wow.

 

[martinvickers]

He's been one of the most widely respected posters on the forum for years, before the Sky controversy started even. That counts for something.

Your respect counts for diddly squat squared, Hitch. I'll take his posts on their merits, not on your approval.

I remember a few weeks ago you used a "It doesn't make sense" argument when talking about Tyson Gay.


I was very surprised because when it comes to Wiggins and Froome and people pointing out holes in their story, you totally reject those, and portray yourself as the - evidence or nothing lawyer type. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, martinvickers won't budge an inch until there is actual evidence.

But there was actual evidence with Gay. He failed the friggin' test! Several of them in fact.

Yet here you were, when it suited you, forgoing the evidence - which said Gay doped, and basing your opinion, conveniently, on what "makes sense".

Read above. And while your about it, consider the difference between deduction and speculation.

So since you do seem to be willing to employ logic to arguments on occasion after all, why don't you employ it here.

I do employ logic fairly regularly. I recommend you do it yourself some time.

Pinotti scored less points in 16 years than Froome did in 24 months. He top 10'd one gt in his life.

Are those who are trying to push the narrative that Pinotti is as suspicious as Froome making "consistently nonsensical arguments".

if you employ the common logic here the way you did re Tyson Gay, you should reach the same conclusion the rest of us have, and save everyone the meta discussion.

You're no judge of what conclusion I should reach, Hitch. you need to get that into your head.

For the record, I don't accept the premise. I don't think anyone's realistically 'pushing' Pinotti one way or the other - I seriously doubt the posters care; it seems, to me, to be rather more an attempt to show up flaws in the comparative criteria in the first place. A reductio ad absurdum, if you like.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

how were my comments on cound in any way comparable to the death and rape threats she received?

They were not. But after Sceptic invited Clinicians to read Cound's tweets in a mocking manner, large numbers of Clinicians did so, including you, and many (about 20) others then responded with full gusto, sarcasm and satire in an avalanche of derision.

Now the Contador tweeters who made the egregious comments about rape etc. were not Clinicians I agree, but your response to Foxy Brown implied that the Clinic should be immune from criticism about comments made about Cound.

You were aware of the numerous degrading comments that had been made against Cound in the Clinic ("***", "not the brightest candle", "lack of class", "ignorant", "self-deluded") that while falling short of the outrageous comments by the Contador tweeters that justifiably raised your ire, IMO the attack on Cound in the Clinic was pretty vicious in its own right, all because she was simply and logically defending her boyfriend/fiancé.

Now we all know because of her position and relationship with Froome, Ms Cound is going to be biased, subjective and emotional. We know even before we read her tweets they will be angry and emotionally laded comments. But that is normal for a person in her position. So for her to be so viciously attacked in the Clinic with its own huge biases about Froome (you in particular) is contradictory.

The viciousness of the Clinic attack was not immune from criticism!

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

And who said Lagutin is clean?

I don´t know. But you must admit, his Vuelta performance qualified for a "no way Lagutin is clean" thread. Many with less performance jumps got their own clinic dubbing.

He isn't exactly demolishing people and making the doped heroes of yesteryear look like utter scrubs either...

I almost thought you will talk about my favo in the next sentence...

... which is part of why Froome gets it in the neck so much (and also, of course, because he's so dominant it makes it almost pointless to watch much of the time and his performance level, along with Sky's stifling tactics, surgically remove all of the unpredictability that people like about sport and that keeps them tuning in, so many - myself included - resent that aspect of them). Sky riding everybody off their wheel USPS style and making races predictable and frustrating...

I think we get close to the real reson for the dislike/hate...
But remember the outrage the Giro 2012 or the TdF 2011 got for the permanent non-action until 500 m to go in MTFs (actually the Schlecks tried to involve other contenders into their riding backwards style). I think cycling fans can never be pleased. If it´s seemingly clean, but boring, it´s wrong. If it´s looking doped, but full with attacks, it´s also wrong.

all the while saying "we're clean, believe us" and having guys like Froome who have undergone these huge transformations yet only doing the bare minimum token gestures towards transparency makes them a figure of fun; Saxo, Lampre, Movistar etc. aren't posturing "100% clean zero tolerance", which means they don't look quite so comically hypocritical when Valverde or Contador start riding like jet propelled.

Their biggest PR disaster. Anyway, after it´s more repeated than my Horner spills, I think we shall bring that to bed: Sky couldn´t follow their words, like politicans can´t follow theirs. Too much factual constraints...

Lagutin also gets less attention, like Pinotti before him and Tiralongo as well, because riding himself to an anonymous top 10 where he barely appeared in the front group at all and mostly just arrived riding his own race behind the front bunch...

May they should have finished more often in the T-20? DeGreef is a hero. At least in a small group of cycling fans. I love that guy too. Always 21st with unimaginable precision. You never see him, but you know he is up there...

... strangely enough doesn't raise the viewer's attention in the same manner as getting on the front and dropping GT winners at will without leaving the saddle, or riding off into the distance putting in times on major mountains that match Armstrong's peak powers.

Well, I am more disgusted when I see a old rider doing the same things on one leg out of the saddle. Only difference; he gets not even a quarter of the attention the young guy gets. And if there wasn´t Foxxy, this guy would get virtually none, since "TheHog" is banned so often.
Funny, isn´t it?

Also, I argue that 26 is not "low 20s".

Agree. 100%. Really.

 

[the sceptic]

...and wordy descriptions.




Wow.

its outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

 

[Granville57]

they were not.

The End

.....

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with your other "compare the comparable" points.

I would like to understand this point above though.

You found the words "super hard GT" for Lagutin's 15th place, but did not apply them to Froome's 2nd place, despite it being the same GT.

In fact, reading what you wrote, they sounded like two entirely different GTs.

This does not look like English vs German or "trouble finding the words" to me. It looks like you are constructing an argument and leaving out some points for one side vs the other.

Here's what you wrote, removing unnecessary parts:



But the reality is:

Froome and Lagutin were pack fodder, then Froome jumped to 2nd, 13 seconds down, and Lagutin jumped to 15th, 9 minutes down, in the same super hard GT.

In your argument, you appear to be saying this jump is comparable, or provides enough precedent to not be unusual per se. Is that right?

I am sincerely asking for clarification, and feel the words are not the missing thing, but the construction of the argument.

Take the words you like... I would say that GT was hard for all... Both performances are unusal. One stayed at the top, the other went back to anonymity. One was before/or at his peak performance age, the other over it... What does it mean? Both dope old-school-DiLuca-style, both are clean(ish), both operate in the "greyest" area possible, I don´t know...

 

[Hugh Januss]

They were not. But after Sceptic invited Clinicians to read Cound's tweets in a mocking manner, large numbers of Clinicians did so, including you, and many (about 20) others then responded with full gusto, sarcasm and satire in an avalanche of derision.

Now the Contador tweeters who made the egregious comments about rape etc. were not Clinicians I agree, but your response to Foxy Brown implied that the Clinic should be immune from criticism about comments made about Cound.

You were aware of the numerous degrading comments that had been made against Cound in the Clinic ("***", "not the brightest candle", "lack of class", "ignorant", "self-deluded") that while falling short of the outrageous comments by the Contador tweeters that justifiably raised your ire, IMO the attack on Cound in the Clinic was pretty vicious in its own right, all because she was simply and logically defending her boyfriend/fiancé.

Now we all know because of her position and relationship with Froome, Ms Cound is going to be biased, subjective and emotional. We know even before we read her tweets they will be angry and emotionally laded comments. But that is normal for a person in her position. So for her to be so viciously attacked in the Clinic with its own huge biases about Froome (you in particular) is contradictory.

The viciousness of the Clinic attack was not immune from criticism!

Yes shame on you, you should have said "such a nice lady, you can tell she really loves her Chris, nothing bad she says about anyone should be criticized in any way, no matter how personal or out of control she gets, because she has the I love Chris get out of jail free card". You guys are such dicks to judge her or any public statements she makes.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Yes shame on you, you should have said "such a nice lady, you can tell she really loves her Chris, nothing bad she says about anyone should be criticized in any way, no matter how personal or out of control she gets, because she has the I love Chris get out of jail free card". You guys are such dicks to judge her or any public statements she makes.

I didn't say it was wrong to criticise Ms. Cound, but that is okay because you rarely get the drift of any comment anyway. I did find the vicious vitriol that accompanied Clinic comments about her distasteful.

You on the other hand have an sordid history of baiting, slagging and insults, so I am sure you found it amusing for her to be equated in the Clinic to a ***.

In your case your self described aphorism, that you are "such dicks" fits.

Your hysterical rants and insults are exactly what is wrong with the Clinic.