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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 14, 2011
504
0
0
I used the "duck" analytical protocal

if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
Thanks for the many interesting responses. My long OP partly succeeded in keeping the name-callers away.

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.
This short post gets how I'm feeling and why I've felt the need to post after so long as a lurker.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
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.
The crux of it is: the supporters of Wiggins WANT those critical of him to just WANT him to be cheating. They don't want to think that those people might have some genuine reasons to doubt the performance. Which is ridiculous really.

Oh look, I made a crux too!

Yes there are a few that are are perhaps so cynical they may never be convinced. Most posters are just calling it how they see it though, and don't like being insulted like this.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
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



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.
Who provides the facts? When we see real hard facts then we can judge.

Look at Armstrong, all the 'facts' scream a doper, but everyone UCI, media, fans all said there no are 'facts' to prove he doped!

For me 1 fact is Sky use a doping doctor. How can they be clean? The numbers are obviously low compared to full on EPO, but are the numbers we are seeing real facts of clean cycling? I dont think so! How can Rogers be riding at higher number that his doping years? He isn't off doping it on his own, otherwise SKy would know!
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Caruut said:
The crux of it is: the supporters of Wiggins WANT those critical of him to just WANT him to be cheating. They don't want to think that those people might have some genuine reasons to doubt the performance. Which is ridiculous really.

Oh look, I made a crux too!

Yes there are a few that are are perhaps so cynical they may never be convinced. Most posters are just calling it how they see it though, and don't like being insulted like this.
That may be true but so is the original "crux" and that leads to never ending divisiveness and argument, which is sad.

Most posters are calling it how they see it but to state Wiggins is doping with any level of certainty one must be using a telescope because there is not enough proof for that. Of course he may be doping but to state he is, is to put it simply ridiculous
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
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.
Complete nonsense.

Nuash65 said:
Thanks for the many interesting responses. My long OP partly succeeded in keeping the name-callers away.


This short post gets how I'm feeling and why I've felt the need to post after so long as a lurker.
Well, this statement (and your OP) answer your motivations.
You want Wiggins to be clean - or given the benefit of doubt or suspicion. Wiggins, Sky - not the sport in general.

Many of us here are fans of the sport - so we wish to see and believe in clean(ish) performances. Which is why Sky/Wiggins should be as much questioned as anyone.

Your OP was on about The Clinic returning to moral 'high ground' - well, look at the F.Schelk thread - nice reasonable posts, even people who have had suspicions about him are questioning a positive for a strange substance, and no-one jumping in to tell 'us' to suspend judgement until real evidence comes along.
 
Jul 16, 2012
34
0
0
Froome19 said:
Of course he may be doping but to state he is, is to put it simply ridiculous
Bradley Wiggins is definitely doping. That is not a ridiculous statement.
How could it be when it is obvious.
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Complete nonsense.


Well, this statement (and your OP) answer your motivations.
You want Wiggins to be clean - or given the benefit of doubt or suspicion. Wiggins, Sky - not the sport in general.

Many of us here are fans of the sport - so we wish to see and believe in clean(ish) performances. Which is why Sky/Wiggins should be as much questioned as anyone.

Your OP was on about The Clinic returning to moral 'high ground' - well, look at the F.Schelk thread - nice reasonable posts, even people who have had suspicions about him are questioning a positive for a strange substance, and no-one jumping in to tell 'us' to suspend judgement until real evidence comes along.
The thing is, you have to point to the one thread on Frank Schleck to find that quality and reasonableness which kind of makes my point! A large part of what I'm saying is that there are loads of Sky threads where neither are visible. The hatred of Wiggins in PRR and Clinic is staggering and it's that hatred that seems to make it ok to say he IS doping without the usual circumspection.

I DON'T want benefit of the doubt, I want reasoned debate and thought I made that completely clear.
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
TheGeneral said:
Bradley Wiggins is definitely doping. That is not a ridiculous statement.
How could it be when it is obvious.
Bradley Wiggins is definitely clean. That is not a ridiculous statement.
How could it be when it is obvious.

[Pleaseeee don't quote out of context! Thank you.]
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Nuash65 said:
The thing is, you have to point to the one thread on Frank Schleck to find that quality and reasonableness which kind of makes my point! A large part of what I'm saying is that there are loads of Sky threads where neither are visible. The hatred of Wiggins in PRR and Clinic is staggering and it's that hatred that seems to make it ok to say he IS doping without the usual circumspection.

I DON'T want benefit of the doubt, I want reasoned debate and thought I made that completely clear.
PRR hates Wiggins cause in 2007 he called all their heroes dopers;)

Clinic is questioning with Wiggins because he no longers calls cyclists dopers :D
 
Froome19 said:
That may be true but so is the original "crux" and that leads to never ending divisiveness and argument, which is sad.

Most posters are calling it how they see it but to state Wiggins is doping with any level of certainty one must be using a telescope because there is not enough proof for that. Of course he may be doping but to state he is, is to put it simply ridiculous
So any position >50% is irrational?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Nuash65 said:
The thing is, you have to point to the one thread on Frank Schleck to find that quality and reasonableness which kind of makes my point! A large part of what I'm saying is that there are loads of Sky threads where neither are visible. The hatred of Wiggins in PRR and Clinic is staggering and it's that hatred that seems to make it ok to say he IS doping without the usual circumspection.
No, I just pointed to one thread. People on the FS thread are able to discuss the case without being asked to suspend judgement - or being labeled haters.

Again, you went straight back in to Wiggins mode - and have played the hater card, so who hates him, or is that just a general comment, which goes away from your opening statement.
Nuash65 said:
I DON'T want benefit of the doubt, I want reasoned debate and thought I made that completely clear.
If you want reasoned debate then calling people haters is not reasonable.
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
No, I just pointed to one thread. People on the FS thread are able to discuss the case without being asked to suspend judgement - or being labeled haters.

Again, you went straight back in to Wiggins mode - and have played the hater card, so who hates him, or is that just a general comment, which goes away from your opening statement.

If you want reasoned debate then calling people haters is not reasonable.
I said hatred not haters, I didn't direct it at anyone and can you seriously tell me it's not reasonable to comment on the hatred of Wiggins that I find in the forum. I'm struggling to see your problem.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Nuash65 said:
I said hatred not haters, I didn't direct it at anyone and can you seriously tell me it's not reasonable to comment on the hatred of Wiggins that I find in the forum. I'm struggling to see your problem.
You said you are yearning for reasoned debate - probably the lamest point ever is to dismiss people who question performances as "hatred of Wiggins".
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Froome19 said:
That may be true but so is the original "crux" and that leads to never ending divisiveness and argument, which is sad.

Most posters are calling it how they see it but to state Wiggins is doping with any level of certainty one must be using a telescope because there is not enough proof for that. Of course he may be doping but to state he is, is to put it simply ridiculous
The original crux is hilariously untrue. "The people on here WANT him to be dirty". Good lord, give me a break. Has he gone into all of our heads and worked out exactly why we suspect Wiggins, and for every single one of us it turns out that we have no reason for doubt, we just want him to be dirty? Now if he has half a brain, that post is a bare-faced lie. He has no idea what people are thinking, yet states it as fact.

Is that not what you are criticising in posters who claim Wiggins is dirty? That they make accusations without proof. However, when some guy comes on and says without any proof at all that we all just "want him to be dirty", you back him up. It's hypocritical.

If we want to wade into semantic arguments about what is and what might be and so on and so forth, we can. Nothing is ever 100% certain. Nothing. So, when we say "[X] is true", what we really mean is "I believe that [X] is true to a large confidence level". That confidence level is not specified, but saying "Bradley Wiggins is dirty" is as much of a logical fallacy as saying "The sky is blue". Neither is 100% certain. One is more certain than the other, but criticising the use of the word "is" is a waste of time.
 
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.
Nope. I and others want the game to be played with clean athletes. Otherwise, like this TdF, it is most like entertainment wrestling.

Big picture, it would be great if a dope-free rider could have a good one-day career. I've given up on grand tours.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Ferminal said:
So any position >50% is irrational?
No but it is ridiculous to claim that with certainty as I said in another thread

Caruut said:
The original crux is hilariously untrue. "The people on here WANT him to be dirty". Good lord, give me a break. Has he gone into all of our heads and worked out exactly why we suspect Wiggins, and for every single one of us it turns out that we have no reason for doubt, we just want him to be dirty? Now if he has half a brain, that post is a bare-faced lie. He has no idea what people are thinking, yet states it as fact.

Is that not what you are criticising in posters who claim Wiggins is dirty? That they make accusations without proof. However, when some guy comes on and says without any proof at all that we all just "want him to be dirty", you back him up. It's hypocritical.
Indeed he is wrong in stating it as a fact and he makes a generalisation which is untrue for all and it is unsuitable to be stated as plain fact, but indeed in more ways that one it is the plain truth.

It seems like you are interpreting his words in a more extreme way that I think they were meant. What he meant imo was that people on here are determined to prove that Wiggins is dirty and for a variety of different reasons mainly based on something which I claimed in the Wiggins thread people may also want him to be dirty.

Caruut said:
One is more certain than the other, but criticising the use of the word "is" is a waste of time.
Maybe it is a waste of time, but the defining line between a normal argument in the Pro racing section and one here is that here people are arguing seemingly with certainty that a human does not have moral integrity.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Ferminal said:
As it is ridiculous to claim with certainty that any GT winner in the last 15 years is clean.

We simply don't know, that's why we discuss it on the internet.
+1

To claim that a rider's does not have moral integrity, without sufficient proof, is inappropriate though imho.
 
I'm happy to see a Commonwealth track rider (who is the
son of a Commonwealth track rider) win the Tour and
another Commonwealth track rider win the final stage
for the fourth consecutive time. That is a fact:), not
speculation or a conspiracy theory.:)
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Nuash65 said:
The hatred of Wiggins in PRR and Clinic is staggering and it's that hatred that seems to make it ok to say he IS doping without the usual circumspection.
Sorry, you are wrong.

Sky has been burning it up all season, yet the Tenerife thread was "wait and see". Then stage 7 happened together with brad exploding against anyone daring to criticize him and Sky.

Brad decided to call everyone who criticize him a w****r. And now there are people handwrining because that glove is piked up? Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
0
0
oldcrank said:
I'm happy to see a Commonwealth track rider (who is the
son of a Commonwealth track rider) win the Tour and
another Commonwealth track rider win the final stage
for the fourth consecutive time. That is a fact:), not
speculation or a conspiracy theory.:)
How is this even remotely on topic?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY