It's not about the facts (or how the Clinic became as repetitive as the dopers)

Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
The poll about when forumites crossed the 50% line with regard to Lance being a doper reminds me that most of us made a journey based on evidence. I was pretty much decided before the Clinic existed but I still found it very informative. I may not have posted but I read threads detailing the facts, debating the evidence and, in time, saw the proportion of posters defending him steadily drop. Despite some bullying there was no doubting how intelligent and well-informed many posters were. The Clinic held the moral high-ground over the cheats wrecking the sport.

As the legal case against Armstrong dragged on, the Clinic became less a place of reasoned argument and more like a school playground. I visited less and less. Now, with the success of Sky, it seems that the Clinic has completed it's transition into a sad club for those in the know to pat themselves on the back and make oh-so-witty threads to demonstrate their superiority.

Let me be clear. I don't know that Wiggins is clean and I have no problem with reasoned debate about surprising improvements, doctors with dodgy backgrounds, questionable VAM, lack of promised openness etc. That's what the Clinic is meant to be for. The intelligent posts that are made are quickly buried by the mass of posts from those who know better and I for one am growing weary. I get the clever comparisons between things said by Postal and Sky etc. but come on, they're just soundbites. Where is the depth and quality of evidence that was garnered against Armstrong? Missing. And nobody seems to mind!

There are reasons to question Sky but not even close to enough evidence to be sure. “We know Sky are doping because we've seen it all before” just isn't good enough. Find the evidence (over time) or leave the Clinic to those who will. I'm talking here about posters that I used to have a lot of respect for and learned a lot from but who have lost the ability to be objective. One of the reasons many of us hate Lance more than most dopers is his arrogance and self-righteousness. Don't become like him.

I know the kind of responses this will get. One will be that I'm British and now that the target of the Clinic is British I don't like it. Um, no actually. I came back to the Clinic to see if there was a body of evidence against him. Partly this was because of all the vitriol against him in the racing threads on which I've commented elsewhere. One particularly hypocritical thing is how everyone wants Froome to beat Wiggins because he races more... like a doper?

I noticed that W, F, Rodgers, Porte and EBH were all in the top 10 or so in betting for the last long ITT, now that domestique duties are over. If you think about it, all bar Froome (prior to last year's Vuelta) have a history of being great against the clock. Perhaps, if you've got the engine you can become a better climber than some of them were. Maybe Sky did just have the money to assemble a team to win the tour. I admit to some surprise at Froome and Rodgers but I don't think the rest of the team have done any more than I expected. Wiggins has been incredible since last year's Dauphine - I don't remember the likes of Armstrong performing through the year in the same way. He does have weakness as we saw on the Angliru and when Froome pushed on the hills of this tour but he has learned how to survive like the best diesels do. People hate him for being boring and hate him for unbelievable performances – well which is it? I await the next installment from http://www.sportsscientists.com but their 9th July post didn't suggest to me anything other than a team getting the very best out of it's riders.

So, who like me wants the Clinic to regain the high-ground, to once again be a place for reasoned debate based on evidence?

And to those who KNOW sky are doped:

How will you convince the rest of us?
When and HOW did you know Armstrong was juiced?
How will you ever believe a tour winner is clean?
Is it a worthwhile use of your time to say the same thing in 20 different ways?

I hadn't planned to but hey, I'm gonna say it: Well done Brad, you've done brilliantly!
 
Mar 10, 2009
251
0
0
I can only voice my own opinion of course, but I do think you are a trifle demanding about the intellectual standards of a public forum. Most people write on the forum to express their views or entertain themselves, not in order to write a legal opinion or publish a scientific review.

Cycling is a sport, and an entertainment. Surely events such as Syria are sufficient reminder that we shouldn't take these things so seriously, and that the freedom to voice opinions, no matter how silly, is a freedom bought with blood.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Yet another thread where someone wants the clinic to go easy on Wiggins and Sky becuse there is no facts of their doping!

I couldn't give a monkey for facts in professional sport.

Pro sport is run in by people who are akin to the mafia. They select those who get to dine at the head table and the rest fight over the scraps.

Sky are now dining at the head table after saying they wouldn't or at least that they were going to the head table in a transparent manner so we would all see that they didn't follow the route that the others took to get there, they were going to do it differently. ;)

Well the undeniable fact is they didn't show us how they got there. They had some press conferences and talked about things they do differently and the famous marginal gains was born.

We have seen it all before.
 
Jul 13, 2012
441
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Yet another thread where someone wants the clinic to go easy on Wiggins and Sky becuse there is no facts of their doping!

I couldn't give a monkey for facts in professional sport.

Pro sport is run in by people who are akin to the mafia. They select those who get to dine at the head table and the rest fight over the scraps.

Sky are now dining at the head table after saying they wouldn't or at least that they were going to the head table in a transparent manner so we would all see that they didn't follow the route that the others took to get there, they were going to do it differently. ;)

Well the undeniable fact is they didn't show us how they got there. They had some press conferences and talked about things they do differently and the famous marginal gains was born.

We have seen it all before.
Oh well that didn't take long.... I guess you don't continue to watch pro sport (i'd presume not based on your post) so should matter not to you the result seeing as it's all so corrupt? Oh well I'd best get out and ride...oh and well done Wiggo :D
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
Nuash65 said:
The poll about when forumites crossed the 50% line with regard to Lance being a doper reminds me that most of us made a journey based on evidence. I was pretty much decided before the Clinic existed but I still found it very informative. I may not have posted but I read threads detailing the facts, debating the evidence and, in time, saw the proportion of posters defending him steadily drop. Despite some bullying there was no doubting how intelligent and well-informed many posters were. The Clinic held the moral high-ground over the cheats wrecking the sport.

As the legal case against Armstrong dragged on, the Clinic became less a place of reasoned argument and more like a school playground. I visited less and less. Now, with the success of Sky, it seems that the Clinic has completed it's transition into a sad club for those in the know to pat themselves on the back and make oh-so-witty threads to demonstrate their superiority.
Your wrong about it being a linear time trend. In fact it goes in cycles of varying length in terms of time. Something happens, and the initial reaction is generally from people who have particular knowledge. As they exhaust that other posters post more or (what appear to be) astroturfers arrive, who neither have expert knowledge, nor are interested in listening. Over a period of time the discussion becomes rather inane. Either the thread dies, or maybe some new thing occurs and the cycle starts again. The Armstrong-USADA thread is a very good example. When USADA filed last week there was a period of 24-48 files when some amazing stuff was posted: copies of all the legal files, together with some very informative legal commentary. In the last few days it's gone back to Armstrong astroturfers arguing that it is a waste of tax payers money to go after Armstrong. In a few days or weeks, something new will happen and the cycle will repeat.

Nuash65 said:
Find the evidence (over time) or leave the Clinic to those who will.
How will you ever believe a tour winner is clean?
If you'd read my other posts then you'd know that the answer is that the tragedy of doping means that we can never be certain that a rider is clean. There are however things that a rider can do, and things that don't impress:
- There are a whole load of things that riders say that don't count for much because riders say them whether they're doped or not. If they're the only things that riders say then they don't count for much. They're the only things that Wiggins has been saying (including the famous blog).
- There are things that riders can say, which seem very simple to say, but which doped riders appear to find difficult. A simple: I'm not doping, and I have never doped. Even the first of those would be a great step forward. The other thing that riders can do is to be wholeheartedly in support of anti-doping controls etc. If they're clean they ought to be really pleased that something is being done. Voeckler said in an interview that the whereabouts system was 'super-constraining' but that it was good because it was reducing doping. I don't think that necessarily means that he's clean, but it's a lot better than those who are not willing to talk about doping.
- The single most convincing thing that a rider can do at the moment is put their biopassport data onto the web.
- Teams who fanfare their clean stance and then employ some people with shady pasts can expect to be met with suspicion. We all realise that almost anybody who's been in cycling has some skeletons in their closet, but some people have more old bones than the natural history museum.

Searching for hard evidence? Sure we can all turn up and expect riders to provide urine, blood and hair samples, or rummage in dustbins :rolleyes: The only thing we can do is exercise scepticism and keep reminding people that all is not rosy in the garden.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
0
0
Nuash65 said:
...Maybe Sky did just have the money to assemble a team to win the tour...
This has come up a few times. I just noticed that the 2008 Colombia team had 6/9 of this Sky squad on the books, plus the likes of Kirchen, Martin and Lofkvist to choose from. It's not just that Sky have thown money at all the best riders - there have been stronger teams.There's mor to it IMO. Radioschleck for me have the best Tour riders anyway, but they had their issues this year.

OT sry.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
Pro sport is run in by people who are akin to the mafia.
Sadly, this is true, and it must be singled out.
It may sound pessimistic, but really, if sport wants to stand a chance against doping, sport needs to start seeing it as a crime, and start fighting it like a crime.
It's crime fighting time.
 
You've pointed out a reality that I have had a hard time putting my finger on. But, it took me a while to decide my reply, because that idea might not be framed the right way.

You are right, the discourse of the two topics are totally different. But, that doesn't mean one is the right way and one is the wrong way. First, the nature of the discussions are totally different: Armstrong's case is a legal battle, which requires nuanced data and evidence. Sky of course is more speculative.

But, like I said, one way is not right or wrong. You use the term evidence based debate, but a better framework would be scientific method/inquiry. Everything starts with observations and curiosity, before enough attention and direction is gathered to go gather data. You can't get data/evidence on things you haven't speculated over, observed, or ruminated about.

Second, people are pretty good at making automatic, inherent judgements-psychology stuff. Experience matters a lot when thin slicing situations, and this way decision making is not conscious (imagine reading a bad driving situation: you don't articulate the reality of the event to yourself, your brain does it for you in creating a decision). My point is, its not worth tossing out speculation, and "we've seen it before", because those kinds of perceptions matter, even if they are not well presented, or comfortable in a traditional discussion. And, they are an important step in what you point out as an ideal process of evidence gathering.
 
Jul 27, 2010
61
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I couldn't give a monkey for facts
That much is evident

Benotti69 said:
Well the undeniable fact is they didn't show us how they got there. They had some press conferences and talked about things they do differently and the famous marginal gains was born.

We have seen it all before.
Well I'm sure the Sky team missed something when they forgot to demonstrate to you personally "how they got there".

Brad Wiggins just won the Tour de France, and he did it clean.
 
Jul 13, 2010
281
0
0
A thought that has crossed my mind is this;

Is the USPS days doping was so widespread that their train was destroying other doped riders. It was not that the train was so good becasue they were doping (Quality of dope and responsiveness notwithstanding), but that train was so good because they actually had some quality riders who were also doped up to the eyeballs.

Is it then so farfetched to say if you can combine some very good domestiques in the likes of Rogers (Who has the engine and pedigree despite his injuries issues over the past couple of years) Porte who also has the proven engine and was able to stick with the big guns at the Giro a couple of years ago when he was wearing the white jersey. And then put them in front of a Wiggins/Froome combo they are going to be able to form a very formidable train especially when facing a lot of very weak teams around them.

Cadel had one guy worth riding with him, same with Nibali (Smyzd was never going to be a factor in the tour). Jurgen had nobody as good as any of the Sky domestiques (Possibly Vanendert).

Sky had arguably the three best domestiques in this tour in Porte, Rogers and Froome. So would it not make sense that those guys putting in turns at the front would be able to really distance some of the top riders?

I think this is the weakest tour in years in terms of top end talent and domestiques. It just so happens that Sky had some of the best top end talent and a monopoly on the best domestiques.

I don't like Wiggins, I don't like how he wheelsucked and TT'ed his way to a tour win, but I don't think he was doping, at least not to the extent that we have seen in the past.

It seems entirely plausible that the perfect storm of circumstances has helped Sky in this race no end.
 
khodder said:
...
Is it then so farfetched to say if you can combine some very good domestiques in the likes of Rogers (Who has the engine and pedigree despite his injuries issues over the past couple of years) Porte who also has the proven engine and was able to stick with the big guns at the Giro a couple of years ago when he was wearing the white jersey. And then put them in front of a Wiggins/Froome combo they are going to be able to form a very formidable train especially when facing a lot of very weak teams around them.
Possible, but not likely. I gave Kreb's a 1-in-10 chance that's possible. I think you'll see AAF's over the next couple of years from riders leaving Sky.

As to the original post, another one demanding 'proof.' What *exactly* would qualify as proof?
 
May 23, 2010
516
0
0
The OP is way to long. Boooorrrinngg. Nice subtitle though. Nice subtitle though. Nice subtitle though.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
A post of halftruths and missdirections covered with a veneer of "reasonability"

With Sky there is no evidence, but there are undeniable facts which still have no explanation. Lets trot them out AGAIN.

- dope doctor
- rider who claims his power rating is higher than in his doping years
- no transparency
- most dominating performance since Hinault-Lemond. They were in the pre-blood vector doping era.

So what is the clinic to do? Nod along and wave? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry that we question the rider you love who just won his TdF, but this is not done without reason.
 
Mar 10, 2009
313
0
0
The Valley said:
That much is evident



Well I'm sure the Sky team missed something when they forgot to demonstrate to you personally "how they got there".

Brad Wiggins just won the Tour de France, and he did it clean. Suck it up, little Benotti.
Yes he did it clean and no amount of words written on this forum by those who do not want him to be clean can change that. I've been told off here for "insulting other posters" but I have been seriously concerned about people being allowed to write fiction as fact. People look in every single corner, add 2 + 2 and make 5 and so on and so forth in rider to sustain their belief that Brad @ Sky play it dirty. I've been seriously upset by that and should not have responded to the insulters by insulting them back. It goes against justice truth and democracy to hang Sky without being in possession of solid evidence, but here you are apparently allowed to do it. I guess its like a pressure valve and so people can write and say what they like about Sky being dopers and there was no need for me to get insulting (I apologise) and upset because its all fiction, wild imagination and wishful thinking. You may want Brad to be dirty. But he ain't. I know that, Brad knows that and most fans out there know that so there is nothing more left to say. Except, don't start asking me how I know that - I'm not the one making accusations and indeed I would never accuse anyone without evidence. Brad, Sky etc are clean. End of story.
I would just love you guys to chill out. Enjoy the victory and hope that we can continue to clean up our beloved sport as we have been doing over the past years. Yes, there will be crazy mavericks, there always is in any walk of life.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
I cannot believe that people can so easily believe cycling is now clean/cleaner when those inside the sport are telling us that it is now clean!

Look at who we have still in the sport, UCI's McQuaid, Bruyneel, Eusebio Unzué, Bjarne Riis, Andy Rihs, to name a few.

Then we have the evidence of riders working with doping doctors. Ferarri still working away, ask Pozzatto, Ibarguren at OPQS and our invisible friend at TeamSky, Geert Leinders.

This is the top of the iceberg.

These people have worked and always worked with getting the best out of their riders with PEDs.

I have not seen anything to make me believe that has changed. OPQS blew everyone away in the classics and team sky blew everyone away in every other race that mattered.

I think when someone tells us that the sport is cleaner, i think we are entitled to ask for some proof.

I dont except a cycling team that says it is clean and wins the TdF is not going to lie to me. The sport has for years and years.

So congrats to all you fans of Wiggins and Sky for your fantastic and unbelievalbe ability to susepnd your disbelief.

I await something stronger than words from a sport that has constantly lied to its fans.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
The Valley said:
That much is evident



Well I'm sure the Sky team missed something when they forgot to demonstrate to you personally "how they got there".

Brad Wiggins just won the Tour de France, and he did it clean.
but remember, not only samples, also the posts can be retro-tested - sadly, one cannot prove someone is clean, only the contrary (at least Popper says)
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
sniper said:
Sadly, this is true, and it must be singled out.
It may sound pessimistic, but really, if sport wants to stand a chance against doping, sport needs to start seeing it as a crime, and start fighting it like a crime.
It's crime fighting time.

In the case of football, in fact pro sport is often run directly by the mafia.
At least in Spain and Italy.

Some examples from Spain: Jesus Gil, Del Nido. From Italy: Berlusconi (I'm sure there are better).
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Paco_P said:
In the case of football, in fact pro sport is often run directly by the mafia.
At least in Spain and Italy.

Some examples from Spain: Jesus Gil, Del Nido. From Italy: Berlusconi (I'm sure there are better).
Then we have the ASO, who practically own French cycling.

They have colluded with French motorcyclists to win Paris Dakar(ASO owned), why would they not collude with whatever team they wished to win TdF?

It is alleged that ASO dumped Directeur Patrick Clerc iirc as he wanted to get tough on doping.

Professional sport is as dirty as a pig sty.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
ianfra said:
-snipped for brevity-evidence.

Brad, Sky etc are clean. End of story.
you allegedly wrote for cycling news in the 1960s? When you did you discover that Tom Simpson was doping?

When he died on a mountain in the TdF or were your eyes opened when Anquestil stated that it is not possible to ride the TdF on bread and water?

Did you think Simpson wasn't like the others he was different, clean and moral?

It may be the end of your story, but others will keep asking the questions that demand answers and if those answers are not transparent the questions will continue.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Poursuivant said:
The crux of it is: the people on here WANT Wiggins to be dirty, they want him to be cheating. Which is ridiculous really.
I dont see that.

As Franklin quite rightly points out in his posts.

There are some serious questions hanging over TeamSky. No one has answered them. Those who believe that Sky/Wiggins are clean all point to Wiggins history ignoring that he has changed his doping attitude. He admitted he loves Armstrong, he wont call it as he did in 2007 and refuses to tells anybody why he has changed his position.

I dont think there is anymore questioning of Wiggins than there has been of others whose performances have raised eyebrows and when the eyebrow lowered to look deeper there were questions that needed to be answered.

I personally would love it to have been the cleanest TdF, but i cannot think that till i see something that is more than words.

For example when i see UCI/ASO/RCS declaring riders/teams, working with a list of banned doctors, not permitted to ride UCI/ASO/RCS events i will maybe begin to think the corner has been turned.
 
Dec 20, 2011
46
0
0
Nuash65 said:
The poll about when forumites crossed the 50% line with regard to Lance being a doper reminds me that most of us made a journey based on evidence. I was pretty much decided before the Clinic existed but I still found it very informative. I may not have posted but I read threads detailing the facts, debating the evidence and, in time, saw the proportion of posters defending him steadily drop. Despite some bullying there was no doubting how intelligent and well-informed many posters were. The Clinic held the moral high-ground over the cheats wrecking the sport.

As the legal case against Armstrong dragged on, the Clinic became less a place of reasoned argument and more like a school playground. I visited less and less. Now, with the success of Sky, it seems that the Clinic has completed it's transition into a sad club for those in the know to pat themselves on the back and make oh-so-witty threads to demonstrate their superiority.

Let me be clear. I don't know that Wiggins is clean and I have no problem with reasoned debate about surprising improvements, doctors with dodgy backgrounds, questionable VAM, lack of promised openness etc. That's what the Clinic is meant to be for. The intelligent posts that are made are quickly buried by the mass of posts from those who know better and I for one am growing weary. I get the clever comparisons between things said by Postal and Sky etc. but come on, they're just soundbites. Where is the depth and quality of evidence that was garnered against Armstrong? Missing. And nobody seems to mind!

There are reasons to question Sky but not even close to enough evidence to be sure. “We know Sky are doping because we've seen it all before” just isn't good enough. Find the evidence (over time) or leave the Clinic to those who will. I'm talking here about posters that I used to have a lot of respect for and learned a lot from but who have lost the ability to be objective. One of the reasons many of us hate Lance more than most dopers is his arrogance and self-righteousness. Don't become like him.

I know the kind of responses this will get. One will be that I'm British and now that the target of the Clinic is British I don't like it. Um, no actually. I came back to the Clinic to see if there was a body of evidence against him. Partly this was because of all the vitriol against him in the racing threads on which I've commented elsewhere. One particularly hypocritical thing is how everyone wants Froome to beat Wiggins because he races more... like a doper?

I noticed that W, F, Rodgers, Porte and EBH were all in the top 10 or so in betting for the last long ITT, now that domestique duties are over. If you think about it, all bar Froome (prior to last year's Vuelta) have a history of being great against the clock. Perhaps, if you've got the engine you can become a better climber than some of them were. Maybe Sky did just have the money to assemble a team to win the tour. I admit to some surprise at Froome and Rodgers but I don't think the rest of the team have done any more than I expected. Wiggins has been incredible since last year's Dauphine - I don't remember the likes of Armstrong performing through the year in the same way. He does have weakness as we saw on the Angliru and when Froome pushed on the hills of this tour but he has learned how to survive like the best diesels do. People hate him for being boring and hate him for unbelievable performances – well which is it? I await the next installment from http://www.sportsscientists.com but their 9th July post didn't suggest to me anything other than a team getting the very best out of it's riders.

So, who like me wants the Clinic to regain the high-ground, to once again be a place for reasoned debate based on evidence?

And to those who KNOW sky are doped:

How will you convince the rest of us?
When and HOW did you know Armstrong was juiced?
How will you ever believe a tour winner is clean?
Is it a worthwhile use of your time to say the same thing in 20 different ways?

I hadn't planned to but hey, I'm gonna say it: Well done Brad, you've done brilliantly!
Perfectly Said
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I cannot believe that people can so easily believe cycling is now clean/cleaner when those inside the sport are telling us that it is now clean!

Look at who we have still in the sport, UCI's McQuaid, Bruyneel, Eusebio Unzué, Bjarne Riis, Andy Rihs, to name a few.

Then we have the evidence of riders working with doping doctors. Ferarri still working away, ask Pozzatto, Ibarguren at OPQS and our invisible friend at TeamSky, Geert Leinders.

This is the top of the iceberg.

These people have worked and always worked with getting the best out of their riders with PEDs.

I have not seen anything to make me believe that has changed. OPQS blew everyone away in the classics and team sky blew everyone away in every other race that mattered.

I think when someone tells us that the sport is cleaner, i think we are entitled to ask for some proof.

I dont except a cycling team that says it is clean and wins the TdF is not going to lie to me. The sport has for years and years.

So congrats to all you fans of Wiggins and Sky for your fantastic and unbelievalbe ability to susepnd your disbelief.

I await something stronger than words from a sport that has constantly lied to its fans.
Sadly agree with you here. But one Q i have to you. How you interpret Tuckers numbers of cleaner cycling?
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I cannot believe that people can so easily believe cycling is now clean/cleaner when those inside the sport are telling us that it is now clean!

Look at who we have still in the sport, UCI's McQuaid, Bruyneel, Eusebio Unzué, Bjarne Riis, Andy Rihs, to name a few.

Then we have the evidence of riders working with doping doctors. Ferarri still working away, ask Pozzatto, Ibarguren at OPQS and our invisible friend at TeamSky, Geert Leinders.

This is the top of the iceberg.

These people have worked and always worked with getting the best out of their riders with PEDs.

I have not seen anything to make me believe that has changed. OPQS blew everyone away in the classics and team sky blew everyone away in every other race that mattered.

I think when someone tells us that the sport is cleaner, i think we are entitled to ask for some proof.

I dont except a cycling team that says it is clean and wins the TdF is not going to lie to me. The sport has for years and years.

So congrats to all you fans of Wiggins and Sky for your fantastic and unbelievalbe ability to susepnd your disbelief.

I await something stronger than words from a sport that has constantly lied to its fans.
I agree with a lot of the things you say there. I, however, do believe the sport is cleaner but of course that probably just amounts to as many people doping but just using smaller amounts. Even so that might be enough to make a difference to where genuinely talented riders at least have a shot of winning in contrast to the EPO era.

It is nigh on impossible to say a rider is clean just because they say so and this has been proven time and time again. I too would like to see Sky making good on their transparency claims e.g. Making their blood profiles available to experts that can verify their claims.

But you yourself has said that

Benotti69 said:
I couldn't give a monkey for facts in professional sport.
so I am not sure how any evidence will ever convince you one way or the other?

My guess is that the Armstrong case has also put the fear into some teams which will temper the amount of doping that might otherwise be seen.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY