-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
rick james
BANNED
what is he meant to feed a snake? cornflakes?But he really does hate bunny rabbits
Yet again none. of these are lies. They are just differences in how you think you would have behaved in a certain situation (always faultlessly with the benefit of several years hindsight and infallable knowledge and memory and entirely tailored to an audience exactly like you) and how people behave in reality
Maybe the mice and rats he was feeding them before or buy rabbits instead of steal them.
"In captivity ball pythons can spend their entire lives feeding on either mice or rats. They will however also eat gerbils, multimammate mice, hamsters, and other small exotic breeds of mice. The vast majority however are happy to munch down domestic bred rodents."
"In particular, they might pay attention to Froome's choice of childhood pets: a pair of baby rock pythons whose diet evolved from mice and rats to rabbits. "It's an interesting fact that snakes won't eat dead food," their erstwhile keeper recalls, and it became his role, while barely into his teens, to supply them with live meals, which they squeezed to death before swallowing whole."
Can you prove that
No, but he seems to hate that kindergarten and it's students and he could have kept feeding his snakes rats and/or mice like previously.
"The rabbits were often stolen from a hutch at the kindergarten across the road from his family home outside Nairobi. "Young children would arrive at the class next day and their little baby bunny rabbits would be gone," he writes, remembering how the rabbits squealed piteously as the snakes grabbed them and started the coiling process that preceded ingestion. "I felt like intervening and stopping it. But the pythons had to be fed and it was my responsibility.""
rick james
BANNED
rick james
BANNED
rick james
BANNED
What a surprise. The number of lies told by dozens, hundreds, thousands of people, most of whom are anonymous, and have to take no responsibility for their words, probably exceeds the number of lies told by one person, who is in the media spotlight, whose words are constantly publicized.
Who would have guessed?
Maybe if you had to watch the "cows" being slaughtered, you would realize what a cop-out the term "don't hate" is.
I see people exploited every day, but I don't hate the system that exploits them.
People are killed in wars all the time, but I don't hate wars.
Last edited:
From the time Froome was diagnosed to the time he and Sky began using this as an explanation, considerably more time elapsed than the "several years hindsight" you ascribe to me. Not to mention that like any large business, Sky had all the resources in the world to tailor their explanation to their audience.
Last edited:
So, taking all these divergent views into account, do any of them justify cynics immediately jumping to the conclusion that Froome's high speed collision with a wall was intended and was a put-up job with some hidden advantage?
As above, the only year he would have needed to apply for a TUE would have been 2009.
The conclusion is, Froome should have just done a Dumoulin and put some fake blood on his knee and said a bit of stone got in there and he needs 6 months off the bike (silent ban length's are always 6 months somehow?) rather than involve ITV Sport, Journalists, French Paramedics, A French SAMU Helicopter & Crew, French Police, A Small Village of gossiping locals, A.S.O. 2 French Surgeons, 1 Italian Surgeon and probably a dozen hospital staff such as porters, nurses and rehabilitation staff.
...
But hopefully reasonable people understand why no one takes anything Ineos or Froome say at face value. There is simply too long a list of the nonsense to bother with. We understand that some will refuse to accept this and are determined to prop up a "Ineos are on the level" narrative. So be it.
Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive. Someone will always fill that vacuum.
They don't. Because they conspiracy narrative doesn't comport with logic or reality...in this case.
But hopefully reasonable people understand why no one takes anything Ineos or Froome say at face value. There is simply too long a list of the nonsense to bother with. We understand that some will refuse to accept this and are determined to prop up a "Ineos are on the level" narrative. So be it.
Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive. Someone will always fill that vacuum.
Personally I stopped eating red meat a few years ago...but my kids love a good burger and I believe in letting my kids be kids and make their own simple choices in life. There’ll come a point soon enough when they’re old enough to think a bit more about stuff like this...
To be honest you’re attempts to lecture me with needless academic interpretation of the meaning of love and hate is a bit much for me on the weekend, I’ll stick with my own simple interpretations for now thanks....and don’t even think about commenting on my parenting approach
I love cows, they’re my second favourite farm animal after pigs
Well red_flanders, it's good of you to acknowledge that despite all this smoke and mirrors about not taking anything at face value, this situation at least is one where the critics should (as I would put it) just have been sensible and put their prejudices aside. "Filling the vacuum" may explain it but does not make it any the more reasonable. We (yes, we) are lucky this was not a fatality as we saw happen to an unfortunate accident victim just this week.
He must indeed be feeling lucky after what’s happened. Sobering.
Regarding prejudice, it means to have pre-judged. I don’t know anyone who pre-judged Froome or Sky., and in fact it seemed at the time we were all hoping Sky would actually walk the walk with regard to their team approach. We all hoped they would do well. We have judged them based on their actions and their public statements, not out of prejudice. That word just isn’t applicable in this case.
You said Ineos have created the environment for conspiracies to thrive . It's not an opinion I endorse - much of the outrage has been contrived. But to base one's opinion of the cause and result of the accident solely on an opinion of the truthfulness or otherwise of Ineos is to prejudge. One may prejudge for good reason, as you contend happened, or prejudge for no good reason at all, but taking a stance that does not admit reasonable thought into the particular situation because of one's pre-existing views is to prejudge.
Our situations are actually similar. I have a daughter who isn't vegetarian, nor would I force her to be. I agree with you about kids being allowed to develop to the point where they can make choices like these more independently. The difference is that, having owned to that, I wouldn't make a joke about it by claiming that I don't hate cows. I would find that hypocritical. There's a conflict, and I don't pretend it doesn't exist.
When Clinton was President, he once extolled the virtues of public schools, insisting that parents should have no problem sending their kids to one. The problem was, he sent his daughter to a private school. I don't fault him for doing that. I fault him for preaching to others, who couldn't afford the privilege, that public schools were just as good.
Interesting. What is the basis for the claim that the outrage is "contrived"? Contrived by whom? There are literally hundreds of people on this forum alone who have had the same reaction to their preposterous claims. Is this a conspiracy? We've "contrived" the reaction as a group? What is the motive? What evidence do you have that this reaction isn't genuine? I can assure you mine is. I wanted this team to do well. I totally understand anyone who thinks they're full of it. They've earned it.
I didn't say that anyone based their "opinion of the cause and result of the accident solely on an opinion of the truthfulness or otherwise of Ineos", I said that Ineos has created an environment where conspiracy theories can thrive because of their history of obvious and blatant lies. They are the proverbial "boy who cried wolf". I don't know why anyone would act surprised when people's default reaction is not to believe them.
I also said those conspiracy theories don't stand up to even cursory examination.
Additionally, there is never a good reason to pre-judge. We've all come to a conclusion about Sky one way or another a long, long time ago. We've made our judgements based on their actions and words over time. That's not pre-judging, it's judging. To say afterwards that people are prejudiced against them is a very strange use of the word.
The right thing is to just point out the stupidity of the conspiracy theories for all the obvious reasons they don't make sense., and stop accusing those who don't believe the team as being prejudiced.
Here's a good writeup from Science of Sport which outlines all the above. They're about as charitable as anyone has a right to be in this piece, but they are also pointed in their criticism.
https://sportsscientists.com/2018/07/can-we-trust-the-tour-sky-and-chris-froome-le-monde-op-ed/
"Is it any wonder..." No, I don't see why there would be.
They go on and make the same points about the Salbutamol positive that Merckx made above and much more.
https://sportsscientists.com/2018/07/can-we-trust-the-tour-sky-and-chris-froome-le-monde-op-ed/
"Is it any wonder..." No, I don't see why there would be.
They go on and make the same points about the Salbutamol positive that Merckx made above and much more.
Last edited:
OK, RF you've posted Tucker's report in lieu of your inability to name a single "blatant and obvious" .lie. So let me deconstruct it
The history of cycling compels scepticism. It is the canvas on which Froome’s words “Trust me” are painted. When any champion, let alone a historically dominant late-developer, insists that he is different, that he should be trusted, that his victories will stand the test of time, we must recognize that these are extra-ordinary appeals.
Right off the bat he's using history to beat someone with. History can't be changed so when does it stop being relevant? I live in a country where many still evoke World War 2 as if it is relevant to today.
And stating that his wins will stand isn't extra-ordinary in way.l
For such appeals to be believable, they must break a decades-long cycle. They ask for history to be set aside. For patterns to be ignored. It is in this regard that honesty and transparency would have been welcome. Openness, and the absence of contradictions and denials may have gone some way to reassuring those whose memories sow mistrust.
Again blaming someone for someone else's history. This is the root of most prejudice.
Instead we have been given the opposite. Team Sky, who rode into cycling with promises of transparency, have avoided, diverted and obfuscated even the most basic questions. They avoided questions in British Parliament, are linked to unexplained testosterone and jiffy-bag deliveries, and have failed to deliver on numerous promises of transparency.
Brailsford and Sutton both turned up and answered questions from MPs that think Le Tour is a Classic.
The testosterone is a fair point - we'll see how that pans out. The jiffy bag less so unless the journalist and his source give us an alternative story.
These range from a promised study on suspicious blood values in Sergio Henao, to commitments to providing data from their race-winning exploits. The marginal gains philosophy has been exposed to be, at best, a PR campaign, patronizing not only to followers of the sport, but also to rival teams, who by insinuation are incompetent, unable to do basic things like keep riders healthy, recover properly, or figure out how to eat and drink enough to provide energy during stages.
Sky said that that Sheffield Uni intended to use the study as part of a report. As an academic Tucker should know that publishing a paper isn't that simple. It's not Sky's paper.
Also I assume that Tucker has read The Sports Gene by David Epstein, which has a whole chapter about altitude natives and blood cells. He seems to have forgotten it here.
As for rivals teams - yes a lot of them were unevolved. But similarly some made innovations that Sky copied. I remember an interview with Romain Bardet a couple of years ago saying how almost everything had changed since he joined (2012 I think)
...
Speaking of the famed Sky attention to detail, this is something we are meant to believe is responsible for their success, but we should set it aside about basic things like losing laptops, failing to back up medical records or histories of orders of medical products, and allegedly not knowing the weight of their riders (though they themselves have contradicted this assertion).
The great fallacy that attention to detail gives immunity to problems. It doesn't. Also anyone who has read Richard Moore's book about the first year of Sky knows they were a bit of a shambles early on, focusing on the wrong things.
As for Sky not knowing the riders' weights. Brailsford said he didn't know. He's the boss. He delegates that sort of stuff.
...
At worst, the marginal gain shtick has been diversionary and deceitful, a cover for practices that they’ve since acknowledged included the use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions to gain advantages. It is no wonder mistrust exists – the same tactics were in play during the Armstrong years.
They acknowledged that they gained an advantage by fixing someone's medical problem over not fixing it.
These are not actions of a clean, transparent team. Is it any wonder that fans who have followed the sport, in particular the Tour, and who mostly accept that the sport is tainted by drugs, are so deeply suspicious of Sky and Froome.
And then back to the history - the last refuge of the prejudiced.
Let's bear in mind that Tucker is supposed to be a Scientist. Science is based on experimentation and observation to come to a conclusion. He rejects this and searches for justification for the opinion he holds. An opinion that I suggest he holds because it garners him attention. Remember that this is someone who felt the need to pre-empt Froome's tests with a report on what he thought the results would be - that's not a scientist's attitude.
Scrutinise all you like. Be as sceptical as you wish. If you constantly cite ''blatant and obvious lies' then make sure you know what those lies are. But if you are not scrutinising your own opinions then the only person insulting you intelligence is yourself.
The history of cycling compels scepticism. It is the canvas on which Froome’s words “Trust me” are painted. When any champion, let alone a historically dominant late-developer, insists that he is different, that he should be trusted, that his victories will stand the test of time, we must recognize that these are extra-ordinary appeals.
Right off the bat he's using history to beat someone with. History can't be changed so when does it stop being relevant? I live in a country where many still evoke World War 2 as if it is relevant to today.
And stating that his wins will stand isn't extra-ordinary in way.l
For such appeals to be believable, they must break a decades-long cycle. They ask for history to be set aside. For patterns to be ignored. It is in this regard that honesty and transparency would have been welcome. Openness, and the absence of contradictions and denials may have gone some way to reassuring those whose memories sow mistrust.
Again blaming someone for someone else's history. This is the root of most prejudice.
Instead we have been given the opposite. Team Sky, who rode into cycling with promises of transparency, have avoided, diverted and obfuscated even the most basic questions. They avoided questions in British Parliament, are linked to unexplained testosterone and jiffy-bag deliveries, and have failed to deliver on numerous promises of transparency.
Brailsford and Sutton both turned up and answered questions from MPs that think Le Tour is a Classic.
The testosterone is a fair point - we'll see how that pans out. The jiffy bag less so unless the journalist and his source give us an alternative story.
These range from a promised study on suspicious blood values in Sergio Henao, to commitments to providing data from their race-winning exploits. The marginal gains philosophy has been exposed to be, at best, a PR campaign, patronizing not only to followers of the sport, but also to rival teams, who by insinuation are incompetent, unable to do basic things like keep riders healthy, recover properly, or figure out how to eat and drink enough to provide energy during stages.
Sky said that that Sheffield Uni intended to use the study as part of a report. As an academic Tucker should know that publishing a paper isn't that simple. It's not Sky's paper.
Also I assume that Tucker has read The Sports Gene by David Epstein, which has a whole chapter about altitude natives and blood cells. He seems to have forgotten it here.
As for rivals teams - yes a lot of them were unevolved. But similarly some made innovations that Sky copied. I remember an interview with Romain Bardet a couple of years ago saying how almost everything had changed since he joined (2012 I think)
...
Speaking of the famed Sky attention to detail, this is something we are meant to believe is responsible for their success, but we should set it aside about basic things like losing laptops, failing to back up medical records or histories of orders of medical products, and allegedly not knowing the weight of their riders (though they themselves have contradicted this assertion).
The great fallacy that attention to detail gives immunity to problems. It doesn't. Also anyone who has read Richard Moore's book about the first year of Sky knows they were a bit of a shambles early on, focusing on the wrong things.
As for Sky not knowing the riders' weights. Brailsford said he didn't know. He's the boss. He delegates that sort of stuff.
...
At worst, the marginal gain shtick has been diversionary and deceitful, a cover for practices that they’ve since acknowledged included the use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions to gain advantages. It is no wonder mistrust exists – the same tactics were in play during the Armstrong years.
They acknowledged that they gained an advantage by fixing someone's medical problem over not fixing it.
These are not actions of a clean, transparent team. Is it any wonder that fans who have followed the sport, in particular the Tour, and who mostly accept that the sport is tainted by drugs, are so deeply suspicious of Sky and Froome.
And then back to the history - the last refuge of the prejudiced.
Let's bear in mind that Tucker is supposed to be a Scientist. Science is based on experimentation and observation to come to a conclusion. He rejects this and searches for justification for the opinion he holds. An opinion that I suggest he holds because it garners him attention. Remember that this is someone who felt the need to pre-empt Froome's tests with a report on what he thought the results would be - that's not a scientist's attitude.
Scrutinise all you like. Be as sceptical as you wish. If you constantly cite ''blatant and obvious lies' then make sure you know what those lies are. But if you are not scrutinising your own opinions then the only person insulting you intelligence is yourself.
Last edited:
rick james
BANNED
***....its because the internet nutjobs believe they have every right to see every single bit of information on Froome and they don't get their way...
How about buses that drive away before riders do interviews next to them, or visiting Emma Pooley in the Alps while she's leading a race in Spain?
A more contentious lie is "we will not hire anybody involved in doping ever and have measures in place to prevent this". Now, if you want to play the naïve card you can let them off with Michael Barry and Mick Rogers, because nothing was in the public domain about them that explicitly fingered them as guilty at the stage at which Sky hired them, although there was an awful lot of smoke, especially about Rogers. But Leinders was named in the Rasmussen court documents. No, I didn't know about that at the time either. But then, I wasn't hiring a doctor while preaching the strength of my anti-doping practices.
"We will be transparent" is an obvious lie, because they have done everything in their power to obstruct transparency once the snowballs of doubt became larger than they anticipated (which seemed odd, the fact that they legitimately seemed caught unawares by people doubting them when they started riding so dominantly). From delaying tactics, to filibustering, to Brailsford's politico answers to straight questions, to promising to host a Q&A session that never happened, to running away from questions about investigations that had been promised.
How about "we will not have riders with TUEs, and we will withdraw riders from races rather than take up TUEs"? Even ignoring the triamcinolone and Fancy Bears, we knew about Froome's prednisolone TUEs when he won Romandie back in 2013. Now, is there anything per se wrong with a TUE for prednisolone? No. Of course not. But it did show up the team's original policy as nothing more than PR bluster.
The "Sand Shoes" myth about Froome is another blatant and obvious lie. How blatant and obvious? So blatant and obvious that Froome's own book includes pictures of him at that very event... wearing cycling shoes.
There are other things that aren't necessarily lies but are shown up in the fullness of time, like them telling of how the roadbook is their bible and how they achieve so much because of their thorough study of the roadbook, yet in País Vasco in 2012 they toasted all their puncheurs trying to lead out Appollonio in a sprint, failing to recognise the Alto de Garagaltza, 1km @ 9%, in the route, which led to the stage eventually being a two-up sprint between Samuel Sánchez and Joaquím Rodríguez.
Does any of this mean that they are guilty of everything they are accused of? Of course not. And reporting can always be more sensationalist than the official words from the team themselves, and the fact that the team has a number of journalists who are thought of as being on-side means that some of the hyperbole of journalists who aren't directly connected to the organisation is conflated erroneously with the official statements that come out of the team.
But really, that in 2019 we're apparently going all the way back to the stage of trying to pretend Sky/Ineos/Brailsford haven't been dishonest is like going back in time. To claim that everything they've done, in the handling of the jiffy bag, the TUEs, and the mental gymnastics that have been done in the name of justifying the unusual career paths under their watch, has been entirely innocent, and they've just made mistakes when they've said things that later turned out to be untrue, is to believe that they've fumbled their way to success, and that's at odds with the outward impression of a very well-run and tightly-managed ship that they've tried to present. Personally, I believe that to have succeeded as they have, for as long as they have, with the range of riders that they have (it's clearly not just lucking into a once-in-a-lifetime talent, as they've had success with several different riders across a range of events), that they are managed well, and run professionally. And that means that I believe they have consciously lied about several if not all of the above things.
That doesn't mean I necessarily believe everything they come out with is untrue, and it certainly doesn't mean I necessarily believe every conspiracy theory about the team, and I don't want it perceiving from this post that I agree with the theorists on the Dauphiné crash (at the same time, I doubt long-standing and reasonable posters like Merckx Index do either). But it does mean that I take the majority of what I hear direct from the internal brass at Ineos with at least a fairly generous helping of salt, and after everything that has happened in the last decade, it will be a long time before they've earnt back enough trust that that won't be the case.
I can only surmise you have intentionally decided to confuse unwillingness to engage with disingenuous arguments with an inability to do so.
The point of my comments, again, was to explain why the conspiracy theorists find such fertile ground with Froome and Ineos. You may continue to refuse to understand this simple notion to your heart’s content, but I won’t play the game.
The point of my comments, again, was to explain why the conspiracy theorists find such fertile ground with Froome and Ineos. You may continue to refuse to understand this simple notion to your heart’s content, but I won’t play the game.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 276
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram