Kittel passes lie detector test, looks like he's clean!

[martinvickers]

What if my opinion doesn't match with the opinions of well known others?

Doesn't matter, you've sold out any moral high ground. You don't get to take it upagain on a case by case basis. That just makes you a hypocrite. and we know you don't like hypocrisy...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Go and check the original Kittel tweet thread, and read what I wrote there. It may prove illuminating.

Now, Jimmy please.
I had already checked that thread earlier.

That thread went off the rails early because Brodeal mentions Sky in the second post. You come along later and call out Brodeal.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Now, Jimmy please.
I had already checked that thread earlier.

That thread went off the rails early because Brodeal mentions Sky in the second post. You come along later and call out Brodeal.

For what, accusing Kittel of racism? Massive double standards?

Give me credit, I'm not a frothing at the mouth Sky fan, my umbrage at Kittel's treatment is purely because I don't believe he deserves it in the slightest. Any mention of Sky is a red herring and frankly bereft of logic, as I pointed out to Miburo.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For what, accusing Kittel of racism? Massive double standards?

Give me credit, I'm not a frothing at the mouth Sky fan, my umbrage at Kittel's treatment is purely because I don't believe he deserves it in the slightest. Any mention of Sky is a red herring and frankly bereft of logic, as I pointed out to Miburo.

See Jimmy - if your point was about racism, you would have quoted 'that' post of Bro's and or mentioned it in the other thread. You didn't.

As I said, Bro mentioned Sky and........

 

[JimmyFingers]

Good strawman, well done

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good strawman, well done

The strawman was yours, and it was pretty poor.
I suspected you wouldnt have commented except for the Sky stuff, which is why i had checked that other thread already.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The strawman was yours, and it was pretty poor.
I suspected you wouldnt have commented except for the Sky stuff, which is why i had checked that other thread already.

No the strwman is yours for misrepresenting my motives. Thinking you can read people from a few words on the internet and tell them why they are doing something is frankly delusional

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No the strwman is yours for misrepresenting my motives. Thinking you can read people from a few words on the internet and tell them why they are doing something is frankly delusional

Well Jimmy, you asked me to read your comments, you even said I might find them "illuminating".

But i already read them, and they confirmed my thoughts.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Well Jimmy, you asked me to read your comments, you even said I might find them "illuminating".

But i already read them, and they confirmed my thoughts.

So the bits I where was railing at the accusations of racism, the clinic upholding omerta and suggestions of an anglo alliance?

Good I'm glad they did.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So the bits I where was railing at the accusations of racism, the clinic upholding omerta and suggestions of an anglo alliance?

Good I'm glad they did.

No you didn't.
If you did, you would link to it, you would show it.

I don't want to side track this thread anymore, but if you persist i will quote the 4 posts of Bro's that came before yours and your post which does not mention (or rail against) racism, etc.

 

[skidmark]

Do I have to support anyone in the fight against doping?

No, but then what did you mean by 'support' in your last comment? Why didn't you just say 'anti-dopers won't get my support'? Or are you insinuating that they're all hypocrites?

sidenote on the whole discussion: I think it's a bit surreal that we're having a thread where we're calling down the validity of lie detector tests while at least one (very intelligent and informed) poster is touting the validity of the 'look at pictures on the internet of people's heads to see if they're really big' method.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I

no you didn't.
If you did, you would link to it, you would show it.

I don't want to side track this thread anymore, but if you persist i will quote the 4 posts of bro's that came before yours and your post which does not mention (or rail against) racism, etc.

omerta lives...in the clinic. How often here do i see riders castigated for speaking out, the same way people speak out here about suspicious performances everyday. It appears you only like it when they speak out riders you like to speak out about. They are in double trouble if they actually cite an example of a clean rider that you have already spoken out about as being a dirty dawg.

Then they are being unprofessional and a big meanie to the poor rider.

This is why i like benotti, consistency

small point little man: 30-40%, so about a third maybe, i'm not so blinkered i think everyone is racing clean. I know you like to think this somehow contradicts my opinion generally, it really doesn't.

And when is the proper time? Just before sunday lunch? When should a pro question another's performance? Is it like when you meeting a girl but not being able to text her for 7 days? I didn't realise there is an etiquette for these things. So kittel isn't wrong for doing it, he just passed the port in the wrong direction

plenty of posters displaying double standards here, firstly being critical of a rider speaking out against another rider based on performance (when that is what is done here) then further qualifying that by accusing him of racism because he's northern european calling out a turk when he should be calling out his fellow northern europeans (which in itself is vaguely racist).

But of course the real reason is because he's not calling out the riders you want him to call out, so he's picking on small fry, he's a bully all of a sudden, and a coward for not going after the real dopers.

And so a tweet from a german about a turk in a race they're not riding in becomes about sky. Frankly that's laughable, but please carry on, it's not my credibility you are making a mockery of.

so if it grants a veil of legitimacy to judging riders based on performance you object to it why? I'm really struggling why people are finding what kittel said so unacceptable when all that happens here is judgements made on the basis of performance, and criticism of omerta.

So a rider speaks out, but it seems the wrong rider saying the wrong things in the wrong place about another wrong rider. There would be no problem if it had been the right rider at the right time about the right team. Which means there is a double standard at play, basically one that runs along the lines of we only like riders to break omerta if we agree with what they're saying.

So kittel should have called out sky, despite them not even being at the race. I don't agree with condemnation based on performance alone. In fact generally i'll avoid judging people i don't know based on virtually no facts, but kittel is a pro-rider, i'm guessing he may know more than me, and is in a far better position to make a judgement on a performance. That said i hope he does know something more to back up what he has done. Perhaps if he was to reveal that we would have a proper break with omerta. But it would still be a small player rather than the names you crave to be brought low.



I realise you have a particular gripe about bias in media reporting, but i don't know how that is relevant to kittel's tweet. He's not a journalist or an administrator, he's a fellow rider. He's not part of the system, or the status quo, he's making an albeit knee-jerk but honest reaction to another rider's performance. I'm not sure you can weave it into your caucasian media conspiracy, it's a different source.

As for sayar, i have no idea either way. Rider on home soil in front of home fans on roads and in conditions he knows very well indeed, seems like a reasonable performance. But on the other hand i want riders speaking out as well. If riders change the sport does.

mind you, sayar does have a huge head

so kittel was on the money? A few here owe him an apology. The accusations of racism was banded about pretty cheaply in reaction to his tweet. The start of this thread makes interesting reading.

you're defending the indefensible, given recent developments. Kittel called out a rider for doping, the clinic 12 decided he was racist because he was calling out a turk and kittel is part of the anglo-alliance, and also there was mass chagrin at the fact kittel wasn't calling out sky, so the many here decided to go after a rider for breaking omerta because he wasn't naming riders than they would like him to name.

And a few months later the rider tests positive. But kittel is still in the wrong?

Does that sum it up?

looking back the only one that said they thought sayer was doping flat out was netserk. Everyone else was 'well it's a bit suspicious i suppose, but sky are so much more suspicious, why doesn't kittel tweet about them?'.

Kittel called it spot on. Good on him. Perhaps next time a pro-rider breaks ranks the clinic 12 won't give him such a hard time, even if it's not about a clinic sanctioned rider.

..........

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nice attempt of death by deluge, Jimmy.

Your first post in the other thread is the only one you needed to quote - if as you claim you went in to that thread re racism, then it would be there in that very first post.
It wasnt.
You railed Bro, because he had mentioned Sky.

 

[sniper]

Nice attempt of death by deluge, Jimmy.

Your first post in the other thread is the only one you needed to quote - if as you claim you went in to that thread re racism, then it would be there in that very first post.
It wasnt.
You railed Bro, because he had mentioned Sky.

 

[gooner]

Wrong bro. Try again next time.

Was talking about calling out a turkish rider while not saying anything about Froome. What's the difference between these 2? What's the criteria Kittel bases himself on to call a rider out?

I have mentioned the differences on numerous occasions. Once again:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1317238&postcount=54

You don't care about doping getting exposed for the good of the sport. You only want Froome outed to give your boy a better chance of victory even though you were happy when he smashing it himself on Plateau d'Beille,, Verbier and Etna doped to the gills in the process.

Don't insult my intelligence, this BS can easily be seen through.

The reports of needle marks are being conveniently ignored by the Contador fanboys.

Yes. Totally ignored it even though it has been pointed out many times.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The reports of needle marks are being conveniently ignored by the Contador fanboys.

Why Contador fanboys?

 

[LaFlorecita]

I have mentioned the differences on numerous occasions. Once again:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1317238&postcount=54

You don't care about doping getting exposed for the good of the sport. You only want Froome outed to give your boy a better chance of victory even though you were happy when he smashing it himself on Plateau d'Beille,, Verbier and Etna doped to the gills in the process.

Don't insult my intelligence, this BS can easily be seen through.



Yes. Totally ignored it even though it has been pointed out many times.

I hate it when people say "your boy"

Also, I want everyone to be given a better chance. Because Contador was NOT NORMAL, but Froome is super completely extremely NOT ****ing NORMAL.

 

[gooner]

I hate it when people say "your boy"

Also, I want everyone to be given a better chance. Because Contador was NOT NORMAL, but Froome is super completely extremely NOT ****ing NORMAL.

Well if people stop selectively criticising and having a go at riders all because it doesn't fit in with the rider they support then the term won't have to be used.

It's pretty obvious why Kittel isn't liked in certain quarters around here and it's all to do with him calling out Contador and co for what they are after their reaction to Lance/USADA and secondly for not lashing out at Froome in similar fashion to Sayar even though the two circumstances have been shown to be different.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Nice attempt of death by deluge, Jimmy.

Your first post in the other thread is the only one you needed to quote - if as you claim you went in to that thread re racism, then it would be there in that very first post.
It wasnt.
You railed Bro, because he had mentioned Sky.

No, I didn't. You see the internet is a tricky thing, you may think you know why someone does something, says something, but almost all of time your conclusions are inaccurate and simplistic. Like yours now.

For example I think your a pedant that gets off browbeating people into annoyance, but I'm sure the reason you go out of your way to irritate people on the internet are more complex than that, perhaps unresolved issues from your childhood, people were mean to you at school and the like.

 

[il_cobra]

marion jones passes detector too, lol