Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Benotti69]

Some might, but it would seriously pee on my chips.

Well what has peed on most cycling fans chips is that Brailsford showed Paul Kimmage a tome of how Sky were going to be clean, transparent with a zero tolerance policy to doping. They then hired ex dopers and a doping doctor.

That should make your chips quite soggy.

 

[ebandit]

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on witness testimony. O'reiley never committed an affidavit for Armstrong. No one did until 2006.

I'm not asking for sworn court testimony.....I'm just asking for a witness to say something....anything.....anyone will do

Why do you keep the bar so high for Sky? You want someone to wander into a police station and give them a signed confession? LOL!

See above......I'm setting the bar really low.

Mark L

 

[thehog]

I'm not asking for sworn court testimony.....I'm just asking for a witness to say something....anything.....anyone will do



See above......I'm setting the bar really low.

Mark L

I see. Froome has already admitted to being injected with drugs and taking steroids. As did Dr. Farrell who prescribed the drugs. Fairly straight forward.

O'Reily only told Wash snippets. She never told him she saw drug use. So you're not holding that bar very straight.

One step away we have Saddle Sores Leinders. We know his backstory... drugs, blood, EPO, UCI connections, the same UCI doctor who approved Froome's Predisone is on record giving Leinders inside information...

Do we need to go further?

 

[ebandit]

However hard you try you can't turn Froomes legal chest medecine into unapproved use of a banned substance......don't know why you keep bleating about the fluimicil injection either

As for O'Reilly she said plenty.......I'd settle for far less......anything really.....all you can manage are pathetic contortions that will only fool stupid people

Mark L

 

[thehog]

However hard you try you can't turn Froomes legal chest medecine into unapproved use of a banned substance......don't know why you keep bleating about the fluimicil injection either

As for O'Reilly she said plenty.......I'd settle for far less......anything really.....all you can manage are pathetic contortions that will only fool stupid people

Mark L

You mean like Armstrong's "legal" use of Cortisone in 1999?

What were you saying about stupid people? Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[ebandit]

Why get personal?

Mark L

 

[daveyt]

See above......I'm setting the bar really low.

Mark L

I think it's safe to say they have nothing.

 

[ebandit]

Hence hog resorting to personal attacks

Mark L

 

[daveyt]

Well what has peed on most cycling fans chips is that Brailsford showed Paul Kimmage a tome of how Sky were going to be clean, transparent with a zero tolerance policy to doping. They then hired ex dopers and a doping doctor.

The transparency thing is disappointing. I don't think the hiring of ex dopers and the Dr was done knowingly.

 

[thehog]

Hence hog resorting to personal attacks

Mark L

I think the evidence speaks for itself. You asked for it, it was provided.

If you're uncomfortable with what was presented I'm not sure pointing fingers is the best method. Just acknowledge the information and we can move on.

 

[ebandit]

I think the evidence speaks for itself. You asked for it, it was provided.

If you're uncomfortable with what was presented I'm not sure pointing fingers is the best method. Just acknowledge the information and we can move on.

I asked for some direct witnesses.....not the usual genuflexions from the hog trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and see how many people you can fool in the proccess

I most certainly didn't ask to be attacked personally....I guess you ran out of ideas

Mark L

 

[thehog]

I asked for some direct witnesses.....not the usual genuflexions from the hog trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and see his many people you can fool I'm the proccess

I most certainly didn't ask to be attacked personally....I guess you ran out of ideas

Mark L

I gave you the man himself confessing to drug use. Can't get much more direct than that.

The evidence is very clear. The testimony against Leinders appeared in court. Rasmussen backed up the same evidence. I'm sorry if this is not enough for you.

It's fairly straightforward. You requested it, it was provided. I can't help if it doesn't tell the story you want to hear.

Sorry.

 

[red_flanders]

You wanted to do a comparison with Armstrong so go on do one....where is the equivalent of the O'Reilly testimony???......anything will do....give us one witness....just one.....

Mark L

Surely it would be absurd to use "did someone squeal" as the bar for determining doping. Because we know all other convicted and known dopers did not have anyone squeal on them. Emma is the outlier not the norm.

Is it confusing for you, the logic?

 

[ebandit]

I gave you the man himself confessing to drug use. Can't get much more direct than that.

The evidence is very clear. The testimony against Leinders appeared in court. Rasmussen backed up the same evidence. I'm sorry if this is not enough for you.

It's fairly straightforward. You requested it, it was provided. I can't help if it doesn't tell the story you want to hear.

Testimony against Lenders was for his work at Rabo........give me a witness from Sky.......Froome didn't confess to an illicit use of a banned substance

Look I'm pretty much done with you here......you can't provide anything relevant......not one example of somebody talking about doping at Sky.......and you've finished it off with a personal attack by calling me "stupid".......I know you are angry because I won't fall victim to your usual tricks......don't sour things with personal attacks......walk away....take a breather....this isn't working out for you

Mark L

 

[ebandit]

Surely it would be absurd to use "did someone squeal" as the bar for determining doping. Because we know all other convicted and known dopers did not have anyone squeal on them. Emma is the outlier not the norm.

You need to go back and read the whole conversation as to why we are talking about witnesses rather than leaping in feet first

Is it confusing for you, the logic?

I see you are resorting to personal attack. It really doesn't help and frankly is actionable by the mods.

 

[TailWindHome]

Froome has injected illegal drugs

I gave you the man himself confessing to drug use.

Nice sleight of hand Hog

 

[ebandit]

Nice sleight of hand Hog

Standard hog tactics......he's just really angry now that it didn't work.

Mark L

 

[red_flanders]

You need to go back and read the whole conversation as to why we are talking about witnesses rather than leaping in feet first

Explain why it matters. You put your bar at needing witness testimony. When it is simple fact that no other (or almost no other, let's say 95% to be generous) known and agreed upon doper has had this against them.

Making it absurd to create this as a bar to accepting that a riders dopes.

I see you are resorting to personal attack. It really doesn't help and frankly is actionable by the mods.

You should report it. Sure, it wasn't particularly kind, but it's wholly accurate that you're failing some basic logic here. In other words:

Dopers have been known or caught without witness testimony. Therefore, witness testimony is not necessary to know if a rider is doping. As such I don't need it to know if a rider is doping. Besides the million other reasons.

 

[ebandit]

Don't be lazy.....go back and read it yourself.....apart from the hog standing at the sidelines blowing metaphorical raspberries and mooning its a pretty straightforward conversation to follow.....but you'll have to do your own work

Thanks for your invitation to report but I know full well just how things work here and hold it in appropriate regard

Dopers have been known or caught without witness testimony. Therefore, witness testimony is not necessary to know if a rider is doping. As such I don't need it to know if a rider is doping. Besides the million other reasons.

Very true......most have been caught by dope tests or police investigation.....so go on then.....give us some Sky positives or investigation evidence......see how your logic fails?

Mark L

 

[TailWindHome]

Dopers have been known or caught without witness testimony..

Witness testimony is not essential if a rider has been 'caught'
I'd have thought that were self evident.

 

[red_flanders]

Witness testimony is not essential if a rider has been 'caught'
I'd have thought that were self evident.

It would be self evident if time were not a thing.

Many dopers have been known long before they have been caught. But clearly everyone doesn't think so...at least in the case of particular riders.

 

[red_flanders]

Very true......most have been caught by dope tests or police investigation.....so go on then.....give us some Sky positives or investigation evidence......see how your logic fails?

Mark L

I'll be interested to hear an explanation of how my logic fails.

I have seen enough evidence to know Froome is doping. That's all. Or to break it down into logic for you, in a very tight, narrow slice of the evidence...

...no clean riders have ever ridden as fast as Froome has since the Vuelta in 2011. Therefore, Froome is either doping or the best clean rider ever. In his entire career, until 2011, Froome never rode at a level which even remotely indicated he was the fastest clean rider ever. Therefore, he's doping.

There's much more to it of course, but it's not possible to get past that.

 

[MatParker117]

The biggest thing that Walsh pinned on Armstrong was working with Ferrari.

To compare?

Sky hired Geert Leinders.

Compare other things?

Armstrong was gruppetto fodder before Ferrari. After a TdF winner.

Froome working with Leinders also went from zig zagging and hanging onto mortorbikes to the Podium.

Those are 2 very strong comparisons.

Another? The unwillingess to release data?

Another? When they did release data, they got Grappe to analyse it. Grappe was wrong on Armstrong, Froome?

.........

........

L'equipe gave the data to Grappe not Sky

 

[MatParker117]

You mean like Armstrong's "legal" use of Cortisone in 1999?

What were you saying about stupid people? Don't be so hard on yourself.

The drug your harping on about is perfectly legal

http://www.dopingautoriteit.nl/wat_is_doping/dopinglijst/toegestane-geneesmiddelen#hoesten-keelpijn

 

[Benotti69]

L'equipe gave the data to Grappe not Sky

With the permission of Sky. Dont be under the illusion that Sky did not know who L'Equipe were going to give the data to. ASO & L'Equipe are the same thing.

Expecting Grappe to declare Froome a doper was about as likely as Grappe declaring Armstrong a doper...........