rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.
Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?
Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.
I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.
We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.
On this we agree, although I think the continuation isn't quite 'perfect'. There are differences, not least the effect that the Armstrong debacle has on the narrative.
More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?
Actually yes. And here is why. We are all assessing the credibility of opinions proferred, but there is a degree of confirmation bias going on here. Why give credibility to Jalabert's comments, on the basis that he is a doper and therefore knows, but discount the views of other dopers who aren't condemning, or are dismissing the accusations?
Which is why I'm not interested in Jalabert. It isn't even that he isn't prepared to back up what he said, it is that
he is outright lying about what he said. It isn't comparative to Landis, and Armstrong's attack on his credibility because landis's accusation came after he had told the truth about his own cheating. Jalabert is no better than Miller, possibly worse because he's milking the furore then pussying out when asked about it by a foreign journalist in a foreign country. jalabert is on home soil at his home race.
Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.