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!
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!