you speak the truth, BolderBolder said:Maybe, although isn't the above bolded phrase...normal? If you sift out the hysteria in this forum it's a pretty thin gruel. It mostly boils down to "well of course he's doping because doping." It's not cool to dismiss the other side as trolls or Russian bots or as having some kind of secret "agenda." What would that agenda be, then? To convince others that Rider X is clean/not as dirty as others? What's wrong with that? Because nearly all the evidence offered here is circumstantial, it's fair game to debate it.wirral said:I understand your frustration.Ripper said:Jeebus Chryst there are some idiots on this thread. And sometimes they get persnickety at MI.
It's a strange, troll like world
He is not an idiot, in the low intelligence sense, though. He is an advocate. He is one of a number. They are paid or have a vested interest (there is little difference) to go on social media and rebut accusations of doping or other cheating against Sky and to try to present one side of an argument. They may also be using these threads as information banks and training programmes to try to examine how discussions proceed and to test arguments.
You cannot reason with an advocate. The good ones simply push a specific agenda constantly, minimising or dismissing any evidence against and accentuating any evidence for. If all else fails, they just turn the subject to something else.
To your point about "advocacy," couldn't we say the same against those who insist -- despite zero evidence that could be presented in a court of law or WADA tribunal -- that Rider X is a doper?
This is nothing more, nothing less than an Internet message board. The UCI, WADA, British Cycling and above all Dave Brailsford don't give a toss what goes on in here. It's purely banter and speculation. If you shut down the other side it's not even entertaining anymore.