brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?
Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.
Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
These seem like normal questions about the process. While I want to assume the system is foolproof, I'm not a big "faith" guy myself. Not sure why the constant defense of this rider, who has been proven to lie about a great many things.
I don't see there is any 'constant defending of anybody.
All Parker, and on òccasions myself, are doing is challenging some of the increasingly speculative theories that are being thrown about in the last few days in the absence of any new information or hard facts for us to get stuck into in recent weeks.
It's just debate, this is a public forum which thrives on debate and differences in opinion. Without that it just becomes a closed group for like minded individuals to wallow in the comfort of mutual self affirmation.
We could not disagree more. I'm simply reacting to a long string of posts which call into question and as such attempt to refute, without reason or evidence, any suggestion that Froome might not be all on the up and up.
The group isn't closed, the forum isn't like-minded. There is simply a mountain of evidence which has led many reasonable people to the same conclusion, that Froome and Sky are certainly engaged in disinformation campaigns and overwhelmingly likely to be doping.
That the massive preponderance of evidence points to a fairly obvious conclusion is not evidence of groupthink. It's evidence of rationality. Attempts to paint it as something else are self-congratulatory deflections. IMO.