Re: Re:
And herein lies our problem...
you seem to willing to sub-contract your critical faculties to third parties...be they the UCI, a bunch of MPs or the popular press...
anyone who understands pro-cycling and who has been a cyclist knows that in the Vuelta 2011 we saw someone who had transformed in such a way that only had one possible explanation...you may see the AAF as the ONLY thing...others just see it as Capone being done for tax
irrespective of ban, its bleedin' obvious how froome 'transformed'....a ban, a bunch of MPs or various press reports do not change one's abilities to understand.
I shouldn't need to elaborate but I will
For example, the DCMS report was useful not necessarily (as correct as they may be) in its conclusions, but in the layers of additional information we saw about the SKY operation....the likes of you and Sam talk about the narrow world of positive tests and rules...these are things we know, we also know that rules and tests can be worked around (easily). So, where does the thinking person go?....behind the facade...behind the Wizard's curtain....Collins may only be Toto, but he's given us a rare glimpse of the workings of 'sausage machine' which we don't normally get...... again, the conclusion from which can only be bleedin' obvious...
same with Levenson, Chilcott, Hutton..........etc etc
but you know that
So in terms of quality discussion, why not move behind the positive tests on which you so rely and which we know are very poor indicators of PED use and use your imagination......
Alpe73 said:
And herein lies our problem...
you seem to willing to sub-contract your critical faculties to third parties...be they the UCI, a bunch of MPs or the popular press...
anyone who understands pro-cycling and who has been a cyclist knows that in the Vuelta 2011 we saw someone who had transformed in such a way that only had one possible explanation...you may see the AAF as the ONLY thing...others just see it as Capone being done for tax
irrespective of ban, its bleedin' obvious how froome 'transformed'....a ban, a bunch of MPs or various press reports do not change one's abilities to understand.
I shouldn't need to elaborate but I will
For example, the DCMS report was useful not necessarily (as correct as they may be) in its conclusions, but in the layers of additional information we saw about the SKY operation....the likes of you and Sam talk about the narrow world of positive tests and rules...these are things we know, we also know that rules and tests can be worked around (easily). So, where does the thinking person go?....behind the facade...behind the Wizard's curtain....Collins may only be Toto, but he's given us a rare glimpse of the workings of 'sausage machine' which we don't normally get...... again, the conclusion from which can only be bleedin' obvious...same with Levenson, Chilcott, Hutton..........etc etc
but you know that
So in terms of quality discussion, why not move behind the positive tests on which you so rely and which we know are very poor indicators of PED use and use your imagination......
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram