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

[TailWindHome]

They saw nothing that warned them away from signing him.

Cool. So no reason not to sign him then. He looked just like a talented guy realising his potential.

The real question should be at what point the realised they'd been sold a pup.
Or had they not realised?

 

[thehog]

Cool. So no reason not to sign him then. He looked just like a talented guy realising his potential.

The real question should be at what point the realised they'd been sold a pup.
Or had they not realised?

They'd be sold nothing. The onus is on the buyer. They knew exactly what they were buying and what they wanted him to be. They saw his post world blood test and they knew alright.

Responder.

 

[TailWindHome]

They'd be sold nothing. The onus is on the buyer. They knew exactly what they were buying and what they wanted him to be. They saw his post world blood test and they knew alright.

Responder.

You seem unable to make up your mind exactly what Sky are guilty of.

Take a deep breath and try again.

 

[the sceptic]

You seem unable to make up your mind exactly what Sky are guilty of.

Take a deep breath and try again.

what is the official bot theory? Sky were once again stupid and had no idea that they had a doper on board just like the 50 others?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Good ol' adpative physiology.

 

[TailWindHome]

what is the official bot theory? Sky were once again stupid and had no idea that they had a doper on board just like the 50 others?

Official bot theory?

Grow up.

 

[thehog]

You seem unable to make up your mind exactly what Sky are guilty of.

Take a deep breath and try again.

Not following.

Why have I been bestowed to find Sky guilty? That's not my job. Sorry to disappoint. I'm merely pointing out the facts in the situation.

I know you want to draw battle lines for Sky vs the world but that's just pointless.

Let's stick to facts please, not emotion.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Not following.

Why have I been bestowed to find Sky guilty? That's not my job. Sorry to disappoint. I'm merely pointing out the facts in the situation.

I know you want to draw battle lines for Sky vs the world but that's just pointless.

Let's stick to facts please, not emotion.

Good post hog.

 

[TailWindHome]

Not following.

Why have I been bestowed to find Sky guilty? That's not my job. Sorry to disappoint. I'm merely pointing out the facts in the situation.

I know you want to draw battle lines for Sky vs the world but that's just pointless.

Let's stick to facts please, not emotion.

Why project emotion onto my posts?

That just seems like a tired old forum strategy devoid of meaning or substance which adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why project emotion onto my posts?

That just seems like a tired old forum strategy devoid of meaning or substance which adds nothing to the discussion.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1555402&postcount=2093

Hog saw what you did there.

Ignored.

 

[TailWindHome]

Hog saw what you did there.

Did he indeed?

Wonder has he found the link yet to support his assertion that Sky paid for JTL's defence?

 

[thehog]

Now I get it. This is a about me. Nothing to do with JTL or the facts. No wonder you're so bent out of shape & emotional.

Less getting personal, more sticking to the facts.

 

[TailWindHome]

Now I get it. This is a about me. Nothing to do with JTL or the facts. No wonder you're so bent out of shape & emotional.

Less getting personal, more sticking to the facts.

Again you project emotion on my posts as a deflection from the fairly straightforward question I asked.

You have stated previously that Sky paid for JTL's defence.

Can you support that with any evidence?

 

[thehog]

Still you're making this personal. This thread is not a Q&A for what thehog thinks or believes. It's the JTL thread. Join the discussion, enter the debate on the various issues discussed around the central theme of JTL.

Rather simple really. You've being going on all day about me. Perhaps provide you're own thoughts on the JTL situation rather than attacking me.

Cheers.

 

[TailWindHome]

Still you're making this personal. This thread is not a Q&A for what thehog thinks or believes. It's the JTL. Join the discussion, enter the debate on the various issues discussed around the central theme of JTL.

Rather simple really. You've being going on all day about me. Perhaps provide you're on thoughts own the JTL situation rather than attacking me.

Cheers.

So no link then?

Maybe what was asserted as a fact wasn't actually a fact after all.

Shame.

Any other facts which aren't?

 

[thehog]

The nada, nothing, zilch line is classic Martin.

Anyway back to JTL, McQuaid comments.

sounds good!

oops.

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...-role-with-doped-tiernan-locke-cites-privacy/

Those McQuaid's can't be trusted.

Wasn't someone once saying it was Pat's doing to throw JTL under the bus? Doesn't sound plausible given the circumstances.

Andrew McQuaid sounds like he's cleaning up. Considering he would have collected on the signing and probably was getting bonuses for each year of service, he did well to string out the heading with JTL.

Good times.

 

[sittingbison]

...
Let's stick to facts please, not emotion.

...has he found the link yet to support his assertion that Sky paid for JTL's defence?

...Less getting personal, more sticking to the facts.

You have stated previously that Sky paid for JTL's defence. Can you support that with any evidence?

So no link then? Maybe what was asserted as a fact wasn't actually a fact after all...

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

 

[hiero2]

what is the official bot theory? Sky were once again stupid and had no idea that they had a doper on board just like the 50 others?

The bit that I find curious is how people think that anyone could be found who had NOT been involved in doping. Haven't we pretty much determined that up until approx 2k or 2001, that 98% of the peloton was involved? And even after that, the % didn't go down by much? About the only ones who have not had some involvement are just coming of age NOW? Can't hire a 24 year old DS or trainer now, can we?

 

[thehog]

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

Hang on. TailWindHome and I were in a discussion with regards to JTLs blood and tests by Sky/Garmin.

I was then accused of being confused on "what to find Sky guilty of".

I then stated it's not my role to find them guilty and I was then hounded on the above topic for 10 posts. A completely different topic to what was being discussed!

That's acceptable?

Nevertheless, perhaps TailWindHome could provide the links on what I stated and what was part of the wider discussion on JTL defence and ask questions based on that information?

Not sure why just hitting a poster with random Q&A is appropriate. I'm not on the witness stand here.

I'd be happy to provide links etc. and my thoughts if the actual posts are linked in the first place. But it's part of a completely different topic to what was being discussed.

Per the question; Smith had made it clear Sky were assisting with the defence and that he wasn't a part of it. JTL was paid his contract up to the suspension. This was discussed myself and by other posters at the time. I also stated Sky most likely wouldn't fund hin in any way further but I wouldn't have that information.

It's all there in the threads.

 

[laurel1969]

The bit that I find curious is how people think that anyone could be found who had NOT been involved in doping. Haven't we pretty much determined that up until approx 2k or 2001, that 98% of the peloton was involved? And even after that, the % didn't go down by much? About the only ones who have not had some involvement are just coming of age NOW? Can't hire a 24 year old DS or trainer now, can we?

Agreed. Sky's ZTP policy certainly bit them on the behind when the fallout from Wonderboy hit. Begs the question as to whether it was Sponsor driven PR or naivity or both. I guess we'll never know. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the decision makers in Sky management knew FA about the road racing scene. I struggle to believe that can be true.

 

[the sceptic]

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

you dont see what tailwindhome is doing?

its just a very poor attempt at vortexing.

 

[TailWindHome]

Hang on. TailWindHome and I were in a discussion with regards to JTLs blood and tests by Sky/Garmin.

I was then accused of being confused on "what to find Sky guilty of".

I then stated it's not my role to find them guilty and I was then hounded on the above topic for 10 posts. A completely different topic to what was being discussed!

That's acceptable?

Nevertheless, perhaps TailWindHome could provide the links on what I stated and what was part of the wider discussion on JTL defence and ask questions based on that information?

Not sure why just hitting a poster with random Q&A is appropriate. I'm not on the witness stand here.

I'd be happy to provide links etc. and my thoughts if the actual posts are linked in the first place. But it's part of a completely different topic to what was being discussed.

Per the question; Smith had made it clear Sky were assisting with the defence and that he wasn't a part of it. JTL was paid his contract up to the suspension. This was discussed myself and by other posters at the time. I also stated Sky most likely wouldn't fund hin in any way further but I wouldn't have that information.

It's all there in the threads.

You were asked a reasonable question

Everything else is the same old same old.

Shame.

 

[TailWindHome]

you dont see what tailwindhome is doing?

its just a very poor attempt at vortexing.

It's not vortexing, when a poster wants to discuss facts, to ask them to support what they've purported to be fact. It's perfectly reasonable.

Posters need to learn the difference between facts and supposition.

 

[the sceptic]

It's not vortexing, when a poster wants to discuss facts, to ask them to support what they've purported to be fact. It's perfectly reasonable.

Posters need to learn the difference between facts and supposition.

There is no discussion when all you do is nitpick and ask for links and evidence.

Maybe try contributing some opinions of your own instead.

 

[TailWindHome]

There is no discussion when all you do is nitpick and ask for links and evidence.

Maybe try contributing some opinions of your own instead.

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.