Re:
Troll someone else, please.
argel said:I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.
They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.
Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?
I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.
Troll someone else, please.