Jonathan Tiernan-Locke written to by UCI, asked to explain blood values

[thehog]

That makes no sense.

Asking for evidence to support what is begin presented as fact is perfectly reasonable.

Otherwise it's just a thread full of made up guff and meaningless snark.

Well it does make sense.

If you're discussing Sky's and Garmin's testing of the athlete and you don't like where the discussion is going thus decide to change tact by baiting and hounding on another topic, well, then that is poor forum behaviour & shouldn't be rewarded.

Because then everyone would just hound and bait just like you each and every time they don't like where a discussion is going. They'd bring up discussions from the past as a means of defence. That wouldn't be good.

I called you out on it and walked away from the discussion and you're still going.

What say you drop it? Because another thread just gets derailed.

Up to you.

 

[the sceptic]

That makes no sense.

Asking for evidence to support what is begin presented as fact is perfectly reasonable.

Otherwise it's just a thread full of made up guff and meaningless snark.

Its called having an opinion.

If you think that peoples opinions are "guff" and "snark" you are free to provide your own opinions to counter this.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Its called having an opinion.

If you think that peoples opinions are "guff" and "snark" you are free to provide your own opinions to counter this.

So it's TheHog's opinion Sky paid for JTL's defense?

Coz it certainly didn't read like that.

 

[TailWindHome]

Its called having an opinion.

If you think that peoples opinions are "guff" and "snark" you are free to provide your own opinions to counter this.

You don't understand the difference between an opinion and a made up fact.

 

[Benotti69]

You don't understand the difference between an opinion and a made up fact.

I would like to see Sky present some facts for a change. I mean they did produce a 'tome' of how to do it clean and transparent and they have been the complete opposite.

So instead of attacking posters why not produce some facts to support Sky did not 'leave no s one unturned' when looking at a potential rider who they were going to apply their 'marginal gains' program with 'attention to minute details' improving that rider.

The idea that Sky did not seek the information from Zorzoli about what the numbers were from the 155 test to compare to their own test really does not pass the smell test.

So many Sky defenders seek to shoot the posters in here while letting Sky talk like ducks and walk like ducks.......

 

[TailWindHome]

Well it does make sense.

If you're discussing Sky's and Garmin's testing of the athlete and you don't like where the discussion is going thus decide to change tact by baiting and hounding on another topic, well, then that is poor forum behaviour & shouldn't be rewarded.

Because then everyone would just hound and bait just like you each and every time they don't like where a discussion is going. They'd bring up discussions from the past as a means of defence. That wouldn't be good.

I called you out on it and walked away from the discussion and you're still going.

What say you drop it? Because another thread just gets derailed.

Up to you.

Why would I not have liked were the discussion was going?

Firstly you're projecting an emotional response or assuming some sort of emotional attachment to Sky.

Secondly if such an attachment existed I would be delighted that a clinic regular such as yourself had made it very clear that Sky couldn't have known JTL was doping based on a couple of tests. That the weren't to know that he wasn't what he said he was and that there was no barrier to signing him.

That supports the opinion that I have previously posted.

Cool

 

[TailWindHome]

So instead of attacking posters.

It is not attacking a poster to ask them to support their 'facts' with evidence

 

[the sceptic]

So it's TheHog's opinion Sky paid for JTL's defense?

Coz it certainly didn't read like that.

Well its not a fact as far as I know, so yes Id assume so.

The point is that this vortexing sucks and ruins threads.

 

[thehog]

It is not attacking a poster to ask them to support their 'facts' with evidence

It is when you throw it into a discussion which was not discussing that topic. And you've latched on to it now and won't let it go.

It clear you're attacking me. If you feel it's a problem, report it to the mods and move on. The fact that you can't move on demonstrates it's personal.

I'm not going to reward that behavior with a discussion on the topic.

Cheers. Let's leave it there shall well.

 

[laurel1969]

It is when you throw it into a discussion which was not discussing that topic. And you've latched on to it now and won't let it go.

It clear you're attacking me. If you feel it's a problem, report it to the mods and move on. The fact that you can't move on demonstrates it's personal.

I'm not going to reward that behavior with a discussion on the topic.

Cheers. Let's leave it there shall well.

Well, a mod has intervened and requested that you do as requested and post a link/evidence.

Just saying

I too would really like to see the evidence Sky paid JTLs defense. Got a link thehog?

 

[Merckx index]

That makes no sense.

Asking for evidence to support what is being presented as fact is perfectly reasonable.

Otherwise it's just a thread full of made up guff and meaningless snark.

I agree, and wish you’d been around a few pages ago, when I pointed out that there was nothing in the UKAD decision to back up the claim that JTL used EPO 10-14 days before the Worlds. That his blood data were consistent with that conclusion, but other scenarios, such as a blood transfusion shortly before the Worlds, were at least as likely if not more likely.

Three different posters—del, parker and fmk-- argued that the use of EPO 10-14 days earlier was a fact. When I pointed out that it wasn’t, fmk said I shouldn’t be taken seriously, because I hadn’t read the report, that it was all in the report. After I read the report, I posted in detail why the report completely backed up my claim that no evidence had been provided for EPO vs. transfusion. Not a peep from fmk since then.

If you want to be the thread’s cop, you might start with this.

 

[the sceptic]

It is when you throw it into a discussion which was not discussing that topic. And you've latched on to it now and won't let it go.

It clear you're attacking me. If you feel it's a problem, report it to the mods and move on. The fact that you can't move on demonstrates it's personal.

I'm not going to reward that behavior with a discussion on the topic.

Cheers. Let's leave it there shall well.

Its funny to see these sky supporters begging for links and evidence.

The same people that will take everything that comes from the sky PR camp as fact.

Perhaps if they applied the same standards of vortexing everywhere they could learn a thing or two about sky.

 

[thehog]

Its funny to see these sky supporters begging for links and evidence.

The same people that will take everything that comes from the sky PR camp as fact.

Perhaps if they applied the same standards of vortexing everywhere they could learn a thing or two about sky.

Well not to steal MIndex's thunder but I was first to ask the "10-14" question and he responded to myself asking the wider more detailed question.

I actually asked it to Dear Wiggo but no one responded bar MIndex.

It's a good question. But nobody bothered to respond and I didn't go hound others for the answer.

Perhaps for another thread but the fact that moderators joined in piling on myself rather than looking at the excellent question posed which "promotes" discussion was a little disappointing. But understand my reputation affords me no concessions.

Perhaps they could all drop the baiting and go back to my original 10-14 question that Merckx was able to put together very well?

Dear Wiggo, question; how did they come up with the timeframe to assume the "usage" date?

ie UKAD estimated 10-14 days prior to the day of the test.

How is the timeframe derived?

 

[Benotti69]

It is not attacking a poster to ask them to support their 'facts' with evidence

Way to go igoring the rest of the post. proves my point. Sky fans want facts when the facts are there to be seen. Sky lied. Sky continue to lie or as Brailsford does, walks away without answering.

Sky = doping, no doubt.

 

[laurel1969]

Sky = doping, no doubt.

I don't doubt it either, and I don't envisage anybody being able to convince me otherwise.

But, regardless, this is a conversation and people from whichever standpoint have to back up claims, otherwise it is both pointless and uninteresting, and also mendacious.

 

[thehog]

I don't doubt it either, and I don't envisage anybody being able to convince me otherwise.

But, regardless, this is a conversation and people from whichever standpoint have to back up claims, otherwise it is both pointless and uninteresting, and also mendacious.

Sure. Then why not bring it up at the time? Why drag a previous conversation into another to point score?

There was a full discussion on JTL defense 3 weeks ago. If the question wants to he asked again why not link the posts?

Just throwing it into to separate conversation is "baiting" & "detailing".

If it was a genuine question then surely it would have been explored at the time? Why now weeks after the event? That to me smells like someone getting personal and targeting one poster.

I don't feel I should reward that behavior with providing a link to my responses from the time.

It was clear baiting. Nothing more.

 

[laurel1969]

All the same, a mod has asked for the link. And I did note you make mention of your 'reputation'. What reputation would that be?

This is an interesting thread, and you are pursuing a convincing line of argument....but for the lack of factual backing for a key point. Please....just post the link. At the very least, I would appreciate it.

 

[Afrank]

Well, a mod has intervened and requested that you do as requested and post a link/evidence.

Just saying

^This indeed^

Hog, you said in a previous post you'd be happy to provide links, well if you had just provided those links the first time asked we could have avoided all of this. To everyone, if someone asks for links or evidence of something, just post it and you'll save everyone a hole lot of grievances. Even if there may have been a discussion on this 3 weeks ago, not every poster may have taken part or read that discussion. And I can't imagine how asking for links and evidence to a claim is baiting.

So if anyone is going to claim something, and someone asks for evidence to the claim, don't drag the whole thread down for pages and pages, just post the links if you have and move on.

Further more, we have other threads to discuss sky and doping in. Let's keep this thread about JTL and not get personal with each other.

 

[TailWindHome]

Sure. Then why not bring it up at the time? .

I did.

10chars

 

[thehog]

^This indeed^

Hog, you said in a previous post you'd be happy to provide links, well if you had just provided those links the first time asked we could have avoided all of this. To everyone, if someone asks for links or evidence of something, just post it and you'll save everyone a hole lot of grievances. Even if there may have been a discussion on this 3 weeks ago, not every poster may have taken part or read that discussion. And I can't imagine how asking for links and evidence to a claim is baiting.

So if anyone is going to claim something, and someone asks for evidence to the claim, don't drag the whole thread down for pages and pages, just post the links if you have and move on.

Further more, we have other threads to discuss sky and doping in. Let's keep this thread about JTL and not get personal with each other.

Sure, I don't mind doing that. But at least the poster could provide the quotes from 3 weeks ago of the actual discussion, yes?

Rather than throwing it in randomly doesn't make for good discussion. It played out over several pages.

For example; a couple of days ago RR made claim about Liz Krutez being paid by Armstrong to be his "personal photographer" for the US Pro Challenge. There was no direct evidence by way of a link. He and others could only provide an association between the two that it "might" have occurred. The mods at the time deemed that fine.

Similar situation here. At the time I provided the same detail & it was a discussion between several posters.

I'm not going to be hounded into doing so because a poster wants to change tact and point score. That's not right. If they're not happy with it they should report the post and move on. Why allow constant berating of myself?

TailWindHome should link the posts from 3 weeks and then I can link all the replies. Brian Smith clearly said Sky were supporting him and preparing the defence. JTL was paid up until the suspension was handed down.

It all in the threads.

 

[TailWindHome]

It's clear you not going to support your statement

Fine

I'm happy to move on, though other posters have asked the same question at various points since the claim was made. Maybe you'll look more favourably on them.

 

[thehog]

It's clear you not going to support your statement

Fine

I'm happy to move on, though other posters have asked the same question at various points since the claim was made. Maybe you'll look more favourably on them.

And it's clear you don't wish to take time to link the original discussion in it's fullness. Because context is everything.

Seeing as you & I were discussing blood tests at Sky & Garmin, then suddenly you changed tact to bring up a 3 week old prior discussion and instantly demanded I provide you links, I hope you can see how I saw this as baiting and trolling.

Sorry if you feel you were being straight up but I didn't see it that way. It was pure point scoring and not the promotion of discussion for the thread.

But agreed. Time to move on. If you wish to ask me via PM. Happy to answer any question you may have rather than derail this thread further.

 

[Afrank]

I've gone back looking for the previous first occurrence of the question "did Sky pay for JTL's defense?" I think this may have been the first claim of it, could be wrong.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1531443&postcount=1722

The conversation your talking about Hog, should be around there if anybody does want to go back and read that conversation.

The issue here is that no link or evidence has been provided that proves that statement. So if you want to support it with a link, please do so. Otherwise, time to move on.

 

[thehog]

I've gone back looking for the previous first occurrence of the question "did Sky pay for JTL's defense?" I think this may have been the first claim of it, could be wrong.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1531443&postcount=1722

The conversation your talking about Hog, should be around there if anybody does want to go back and read that conversation.

The issue here is that no link or evidence has been provided that proves that statement. So if you want to support it with a link, please do so. Otherwise, time to move on.

Thanks. But you linked one post not an actual conversation.

I also assume you missed my follow up post, 2 post later? Where I clarified what I meant. But I assume that's not important? The goal here is to demonise me on one post and not an actual conversion.

But it's all there in the actual thread rather than one link of one post.

Perhaps now I can pull out individual posts and demand links? (Don't worry I won't be doing that!).

Let's move on, agreed. I've been hit over the head enough with this. I'm beat.

 

[Afrank]

clicking the arrow on Mrhender post on the single post I linked will take people to the conversations location.