Geert Leinders

[martinvickers]

Not being smart - but the forum rules have not been applied hence why it has become a 'stupid debate'.

Much of this discussion should be in the Walsh thread - although that has turned in to the Sky racing tactics thread.
When I pointed out that Walsh had written a piece on Leinders and blood doping. I gave a summary, and did link to it. Yet the name calling kicked in and the excuses for not reading the articles started.
Let us know what to do.

Have to agree with the doc here, Ferryman.

One of the basic thrusts of the new rules is that allegations should be evidenced, sourced and linked, is it not?

Here we have a poster refusing, proudly, even to read the articles he wants to comment on. When it's pointed out, pretty correctly, that that rather reduces, if not completely annihalates, the credibility of any comment he proceeds to make on the content of said work, the nonsense begins.

If the rules against this basic trolling has been enforced to begin with, the thread need never have detoured. This is a direct result of the source/evidence rule not being applied from the start of the conversation.

It's basic algebra, F.

 

[the sceptic]

Have to agree with the doc here, Ferryman.

One of the basic thrusts of the new rules is that allegations should be evidenced, sourced and linked, is it not?

Here we have a poster refusing, proudly, even to read the articles he wants to comment on. When it's pointed out, pretty correctly, that that rather reduces, if not completely annihalates, the credibility of any comment he proceeds to make on the content of said work, the nonsense begins.

If the rules against this basic trolling has been enforced to begin with, the thread need never have detoured. This is a direct result of the source/evidence rule not being applied from the start of the conversation.

It's basic algebra, F.

No, what ruins the thread is you and the other Walsh supporters immidiately jumping in and nitpicking the same boring argument over and over again. Who cares?

What will future generations think when they have to wade through hundreds of posts of this nonsense when all they wanted to do was read about Leinders?

 

[gooner]

No, what ruins the thread is you and the other Walsh supporters immidiately jumping in and nitpicking the same boring argument over and over again. Who cares?

What will future generations think when they have to wade through hundreds of posts of this nonsense when all they wanted to do was read about Leinders?

Get your facts right before you fire off with your comments first.

Check again who brought Walsh into the thread.

 

[martinvickers]

No, what ruins the thread is you and the other Walsh supporters immidiately jumping in and nitpicking the same boring argument over and over again. Who cares?

I care. I don't care if you do. And again, you have no carte blanche to throw insults at people, much though you think you might. Ball, not man.

What will future generations think when they have to wade through hundreds of posts of this nonsense when all they wanted to do was read about Leinders?

Will no-one think of the children?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, what ruins the thread is you and the other Walsh supporters immidiately jumping in and nitpicking the same boring argument over and over again. Who cares?

What will future generations think when they have to wade through hundreds of posts of this nonsense when all they wanted to do was read about Leinders?

You make an appeal about "future generations" and want to let people post nonsense and BS without correction?

 

[gooner]

Have to agree with the doc here, Ferryman.

One of the basic thrusts of the new rules is that allegations should be evidenced, sourced and linked, is it not?

Here we have a poster refusing, proudly, even to read the articles he wants to comment on. When it's pointed out, pretty correctly, that that rather reduces, if not completely annihalates, the credibility of any comment he proceeds to make on the content of said work, the nonsense begins.

If the rules against this basic trolling has been enforced to begin with, the thread need never have detoured. This is a direct result of the source/evidence rule not being applied from the start of the conversation.

It's basic algebra, F.

Agree totally Martin.

Back on topic.

Went a bit digging in the last day or two looking to see if there was any articles regarding Leinders and doping at Rabo before he first went to Sky and I came across this. I remember Shane Stokes on about Jan Koerts saying Leinders helped him keep his haematocrit down. I wasn't sure when this was said until I came across this article in 2007 about this. The dopeology website mentions about this also where Leinders gave him saline tablets.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/fs1fujgr

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Koerts-admission-2/

 

[the sceptic]

You make an appeal about "future generations" and want to let people post nonsense and BS without correction?

My personal opinion is that not every post needs to be 100% true and backed up with links to have a good forum reading experience.

Of course people need to be called out on it when they are blatantly making stuff up. But in this case I believe this all started by the hog making a joke about Walsh being on the Leinders case and then Benotti jumping at the opportunity to troll Walsh some more. In an ideal world at mod would show up at this point to tell everyone to stay on topic but alas here we are 100 posts later.

Anyway I know I have contributed to taking it further off topic and this post doesnt help either so I will stop posting about non Leinders related issues in the thread now.

 

[del1962]

All this bickering about Walsh is not answering the question I asked, does anyone know what happened to the Belgium Criminal Investigation against Leinders.

 

[thehog]

My personal opinion is that not every post needs to be 100% true and backed up with links to have a good forum reading experience.

Of course people need to be called out on it when they are blatantly making stuff up. But in this case I believe this all started by the hog making a joke about Walsh being on the Leinders case and then Benotti jumping at the opportunity to troll Walsh some more. In an ideal world at mod would show up at this point to tell everyone to stay on topic but alas here we are 100 posts later.

Anyway I know I have contributed to taking it further off topic and this post doesnt help either so I will stop posting about non Leinders related issues in the thread now.

I tend to agree with what you write.

I think we should be allowed to write "In my opinion Leinders was hired to set up a blood program at Sky".

Because it's the totality of his history which can draw one to that conclusion.

Is it likely? Sure after hearing the Rabo stories in particular Thomas Dekkers account.

Thomas might have never used EPO if it wasn't to Leinders. It was a harrowing read what Leinders did to him. I actually commend JV for hiring him.

Then you have Froome. Add Leinders and his breakout Vuelta performance coinciding with the Leinders appointment, well yeah, one has every right to make the statement that Leinders set up a program at Sky and Froome was a beneficiary of that program.

That doesn't require a link. It's all common knowledge.

I feel some just use link link link to deflect and censor conversion and debate.

Which is sad.

 

[sniper]

Agree totally Martin.

Back on topic.

Went a bit digging in the last day or two looking to see if there was any articles regarding Leinders and doping at Rabo before he first went to Sky and I came across this. I remember Shane Stokes on about Jan Koerts saying Leinders helped him keep his haematocrit down. I wasn't sure when this was said until I came across this article in 2007 about this. The dopeology website mentions about this also where Leinders gave him saline tablets.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/fs1fujgr

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Koerts-admission-2/

Good post good spot.
Walsh should be told.
if sky screened leinders which i believe they claim they did before hiring him,, they couldnt have missed this.

 

[gooner]

I tend to agree with what you write.

I think we should be allowed to write "In my opinion Leinders was hired to set up a blood program at Sky".

That's fair enough because you are saying "in my opinion". We know Leinders was an employee and with his past this is a possibility of course. You are not saying it in a definitive manner.

But that's not what's going on at times. We hear motoman was hired by Sky as if it's 100% true. That can't be said in this way. The same with the Carbon Monoxide accusation. The discussion going down this route is a way of shooting down a differing and more reserved opinion on this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I tend to agree with what you write.

I think we should be allowed to write "In my opinion Leinders was hired to set up a blood program at Sky".

Because it's the totality of his history which can draw one to that conclusion.

Is it likely? Sure after hearing the Rabo stories in particular Thomas Dekkers account.

Thomas might have never used EPO if it wasn't to Leinders. It was a harrowing read what Leinders did to him. I actually commend JV for hiring him.

Then you have Froome. Add Leinders and his breakout Vuelta performance coinciding with the Leinders appointment, well yeah, one has every right to make the statement that Leinders set up a program at Sky and Froome was a beneficiary of that program.

That doesn't require a link. It's all common knowledge.

I feel some just use link link link to deflect and censor conversion and debate.

Which is sad.

You are entitled to your opinion - nothing stops that, and I resent the accusation that looking for a link is any form of censorship.
You are not entitled to make up facts though.

Yet again you bring up Froome, in another thread. While ignoring that his rise has continued after Leinders. Unless of course you have a fact or link to suggest Leinders is with Sky since 2012.

 

[hrotha]

You are entitled to your opinion - nothing stops that, and I resent the accusation that looking for a link is any form of censorship.
You are not entitled to make up facts though.

Yet again you bring up Froome, in another thread. While ignoring that his rise has continued after Leinders. Unless of course you have a fact or link to suggest Leinders is with Sky since 2012.

That's largely irrelevant, because the theory goes that hiring Leinders in late 2010 signaled a conscious change of policy, not that Leinders was ever the alpha and omega of doping at Sky.

 

[Samson777]

I don't have a care in the world if you don't buy the paper or don't subscribe to the ST website. I don't look at it from the point of view of giving money to Murdoch, I look at it from reading an excellent journalist's articles.

With your kind of arguments, you can "justify" a whole lot of BS...


First you argued, that if you are interested in Walsh and want to comment on his articles, you should contribute money to Murdoch. So basically you say: I im am interested in X so it doesn't matter if my interest means that I support Y, even do Y is bad, and I would not like to support Y.

You think that is valid way to argue? Remember Y could be much worse than Murdoch and in that case I am sure you would not have made that kind of argument, but it doesn't make your Murdoch argument better, I'm afraid.

Second you argue, that you don't look at it from the point of view of giving money to Murdoch, but look at it from an excellent journalist articles.

So, you say: I only look at it from perspective A, so B doesn't matter.

Just one example of, what you could say with that kind of argumentation:

I don't look at it from the point of view, that the children who produced your clothes, died in the factory owned by the clothes company, where the clothes was produced. I look at it from the point of view, that the clothes is excellent. So, you should continue to give money to the clothes company.

Again, I don't imply you would make that argument, had we talked about clothes. But, it still doesn't mean, that your Murdoch argument is valid.

 

[thehog]

You are entitled to your opinion - nothing stops that, and I resent the accusation that looking for a link is any form of censorship.
You are not entitled to make up facts though.

Yet again you bring up Froome, in another thread. While ignoring that his rise has continued after Leinders. Unless of course you have a fact or link to suggest Leinders is with Sky since 2012.

Why create such conflict? How about a discussion instead having that chip the size of Froome's hematocrit on your shoulder. Slow down, take a deep breath and let's talk through this one. Because its important to the whole Sky gangbusters saga...

I find it interesting that Froome whom nobody had heard before broke out about a year after Leinders.

Of course he continued to rise and rise and rise to *** levels after Dr. L had been brushed aside. But Dr. Luther had added in the mix that gave him wings. That can be continued longer after Luther has gone.

Now seeing Froome has been having dalliance with Motoman unbeknownst to Walsh, the British public and probably Dave, therefore how do I know training plans in coded messages aren't flying over iMessage as we speak? You know not even the NSA has privy to iMessage.

The answer is I don't. But it's very much possible. Knowing what I know about Yates, Motoman, Leinders and the rise of Froome I'm probably not far off.

An opinion, a theory if you will, but very possible based on Sky's/Froome track record.

That and his beyond *** accent of Ventoux.

 

[gooner]

With your kind of arguments, you can "justify" a whole lot of BS...


First you argued, that if you are interested in Walsh and want to comment on his articles, you should contribute money to Murdoch. So basically you say: I im am interested in X so it doesn't matter if my interest means that I support Y, even do Y is bad, and I would not like to support Y.

You think that is valid way to argue? Remember Y could be much worse than Murdoch and in that case I am sure you would not have made that kind of argument, but it doesn't make your Murdoch argument better, I'm afraid.

Second you argue, that you don't look at it from the point of view of giving money to Murdoch, but look at it from an excellent journalist articles.

So, you say: I only look at it from perspective A, so B doesn't matter.

So, just one example of, what you could say with that kind of argumentation:

I don't look at it from the point of view, that the children who produced your clothes, died in the factory owned by the clothes company, where the clothes was produced. I look at it from the point of view, that the clothes is excellent. So, you should continue to give money to the clothes company.

Again, I don't imply you would make that argument, had we talked about clothes. But, it still doesn't mean, that your Murdoch argument is valid.

If you want to read his articles and comment on his articles go out and buy the paper. I don't care about your prejudices to Murdoch, but if that is the reason for you not purchasing it, that's your business but you still can't comment on that said article in question.

So do you think you can still offer an opinion without reading his pieces?

 

[Samson777]

If you want to read his articles and comment on his articles go out and buy the paper. I don't care about your prejudices to Murdoch, but if that is the reason for you not purchasing it, that's your business but you still can't comment on that said article in question.

So do you think you can still offer an opinion without reading his pieces?

Haha okay, I think I will just leave it with that..

 

[Samson777]

If you want to read his articles and comment on his articles go out and buy the paper. I don't care about your prejudices to Murdoch, but if that is the reason for you not purchasing it, that's your business but you still can't comment on that said article in question.

So do you think you can still offer an opinion without reading his pieces?

Haha okay, I think I will just leave it with that then.

I'm out, goodnight.

 

[thehog]

Agree totally Martin.

Back on topic.

Went a bit digging in the last day or two looking to see if there was any articles regarding Leinders and doping at Rabo before he first went to Sky and I came across this. I remember Shane Stokes on about Jan Koerts saying Leinders helped him keep his haematocrit down. I wasn't sure when this was said until I came across this article in 2007 about this. The dopeology website mentions about this also where Leinders gave him saline tablets.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/fs1fujgr

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Koerts-admission-2/

Good post Gooner.

Leinders CV is lush with fine work and salubrious teams.

The guy does one thing. And one thing only. He's a doping Doctor. A good one as well.

He's been doing it all his life.

So when you read Wiggins autobiography praising the good Doctor you say to yourself, what the xxxx?

How much evidence is needed, along with rumours, innuendo to start drawing a picture thats fairly bleak about Team Sky.

It's not rocket science about what's going on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why create such conflict? How about a discussion instead having that chip the size of Froome's hematocrit on your shoulder. Slow down, take a deep breath and let's talk through this one. Because its important to the whole Sky gangbusters saga...

I find it interesting that Froome whom nobody had heard before broke out about a year after Leinders.

Of course he continued to rise and rise and rise to *** levels after Dr. L had been brushed aside. But Dr. Luther had added in the mix that gave him wings. That can be continued longer after Luther has gone.

Now seeing Froome has been having dalliance with Motoman unbeknownst to Walsh, the British public and probably Dave, therefore how do I know training plans in coded messages aren't flying over iMessage as we speak? You know not even the NSA has privy to iMessage.

The answer is I don't. But it's very much possible. Knowing what I know about Yates, Motoman, Leinders and the rise of Froome I'm probably not far off.

An opinion, a theory if you will, but very possible based on Sky's/Froome track record.

That and his beyond *** accent of Ventoux.

Oh good- let's talk this one through then.
Since you brought it in let's start with what is Froomes hematocrit? And how do you know?

 

[thehog]

Oh good- let's talk this one through then.
Since you brought it in let's start with what is Froomes hematocrit? And how do you know?

The funny thing about you Mr. Mas.

Is you are running and the forum, pointing fingers, saying link link, you said blue when it was black and calling people trolls to notice that your doing just the same. Your missing out on some very good dicussion.

So on point.

What are your thoughts on Leinders and Sky? Do you think it was nefarious or innocent?

Your opinion nothing else.

Have a try. I'm actually interested to hear your views.

Your views.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The funny thing about you Mr. Mas.

Is you are running and the forum, pointing fingers, saying link link, you said blue when it was black and calling people trolls to notice that your doing just the same. Your missing out on some very good dicussion.

So on point.

What are your thoughts on Leinders and Sky? Do you think it was nefarious or innocent?

Your opinion nothing else.

Have a try. I'm actually interested to hear your views.

Your views.

Why don't you answer my simple question? You brought it up.

I have given my opinion on Sky, Leinders etc in the appropriate threads.

 

[red_flanders]

I have given my opinion on Sky, Leinders etc in the appropriate threads.

Thread title: Geert Leinders

It would be so much easier to read the topical content in the threads if every one wasn't turned into a bunch of off-topic bickering, evasion and pedantry.

 

[thehog]

Why don't you answer my simple question? You brought it up.

I have given my opinion on Sky, Leinders etc in the appropriate threads.

I rest my case.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thread title: Geert Leinders

It would be so much easier to read the topical content in the threads if every one wasn't turned into a bunch of off-topic bickering, evasion and pedantry.

It would be easier still if the thread was not taken off topic and you read my earlier posts here.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=961931#post961931
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=963141#post963141
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=963235#post963235
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=963831#post963831
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1045620#post1045620
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1045745#post1045745

I don't see why I have to repeat myself particularly when the only reason is to deflect something they introduced.