TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
Being a liar (or a poor story teller) doesn't make one a doper. The guy isnt the sharpest knife in the block (by some way) - I'm surprised he can remember one day from the next. So Sky have lied / not been fully transparent about a lot of things - why would they be? They want to protect their methods (whether you think legal or not) - not exactly unreasonable.
While generally what you say is of course true about lies, in the particular what you're saying is quite wrong.
The particular lies about the particular topics are all completely consistent with a team lying about doping and not at all consistent with a team trying to protect its methods.
Pretty simple stuff.
As I have said on many occasions in the past I believe Sky are chemically enhanced but within the rules (just...) - hence the zipped lips.
You are right, you have said this before. About 800 times. And always without being asked.
My question then do you is, if you insist on repeating this fake attempt at a compromise (since if they aren't doping they aren't doping so you don't win any points for saying they almost dope), what evidence do you actually have on this.
I mean every doubter in the clinic is able to back up their view that Sky dope, with evidence. Things like working with Lienders, working with Jullich, with Yates, with Sutton. Making up a disease, fabricating data, lying to the press, losing weight in ways fellow cyclists say is impossible clean and doing so at exactly the moment a magic weight loss drug comes out, beating Armstrong, impossible improvements, claiming "dope is dead" etc etc.
Now your turn.
What evidence do you have that A) sky are not doping, and B) that they are chemically enhancing themselves with basically useless legal drugs, that leads you to be so certain of this and insist on repeating it.