Can you prove thatBut he really does hate bunny rabbits
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!
Can you prove thatBut he really does hate bunny rabbits
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 realityThis is the kind of argument that people use to promote quack treatments. Nothing in medicine, or in life pretty much, is exactly uniform. Maybe one person in a hundred will have some side effect from a drug. Does that mean it's likely that someone at random will have the side effect? We would certainly use that probability to convict someone of doping, but we're going to give Froome a pass on what he says about schisto?
This response of yours is, frankly, pathetic. I'm not talking about details, I'm talking about basic things anyone with a disease would know about. Not even taking into account that in this day and age, with the internet, most people become nearly as informed about a disease as their doctor.. I never heard someone with cancer refer to the causative agent as a virus (in most cases). Anyone with AIDS knows damned well that a virus is the agent, and not something else.
Beyond that, if you use physiology to advance an argument, you can't then plead ignorance about the physiology. If Froome doesn't know the details about schisto, he shouldn't be making claims about how it could affect his riding.
Maybe you're different, but when I promise someone something, then don't deliver, I provide an explanation as to why I couldn't keep the promise. Having not done that, I certainly wouldn't complain that I can never satisfy people with my explanations.
Again, someone who has nothing to hide will set the record straight. It's the easiest thing in the world to do.
Your responses indicate that you either don't understand, or are in major denial, about how dishonesty manifests itself. You want to get all technical about what a lie is, ignoring the enormous amount of deception that's occurring. Maybe technically, Clinton didn't lie about having sex with Lewinsky. He was still dishonest about it. Maybe technically, Trump's daughter doesn't lie to get ahead in business. She still, by her own written words, makes use of dishonesty. Sins of omission are just as dishonest as sins of commission.
Not the pets of kindergarteners...what is he meant to feed a snake? cornflakes?
what is he meant to feed a snake? cornflakes?
Can you prove that
your moral outrage is rather funnyNot the pets of kindergarteners...
If we're allowing personal opinions to be presented as lies, here's my top 10 lies about Froome made up by the Clinic/other internet posters:
Shame i've limited myself to 10, i could go on and on....
- Chris Froome is not an exceptionally talented endurance athlete
- Chris Froome has never had Balharzia (or however you spell it)
- Chris Froome's best result pre 2011 was the anatomic jock race
- Chris Froome is a convicted doper
- Chris Froome rides a motorbike
- Chris Froome's 2007 test data was fabricated
- Chris Froomes's 2016 test data was fabricated
- Chris Froome didn't really crash his bike at the 2019 Dauphine
- Chris Froome hasnt got asthma
- Chris Froome hates bunny rabbits
I feed my kids beef...but I don't hate cows.
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
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.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?
They don't. Because they conspiracy narrative doesn't comport with logic or reality...in this case.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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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).
...
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.
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.
...
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.
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?OK, RF you've posted Tucker's report in lieu of your inability to name a single "blatant and obvious" .lie.