Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[LaFlorecita]

He clearly missed the infamous "Contador's head" thread!

that's a classic

 

[King Boonen]

that's a classic

The head or the thread?

 

[sublimit]

In the last 30 days only? How did you come up with that selective date range?

Are you sure you don't have a job with the Tory party?

Wow, just wow.

Tories don't in the main dish out jobs its usually the opposite, unless you have money

 

[LaFlorecita]

The head or the thread?

Lame attempt at a joke.

 

[thehog]

And of course the posts by Hog, Hitch and sniper prove my point.

Where oh where did I mention anything about SKY fans, yet that is the automatic assumption that I was inferring. Completely wrong. It is like people cannot see beyond the obsession with SKY.

The biggest doping story in my view this year has been Ferrari and Astana, that has now long been forgotten in the headlong rush to disect, over-analyse, twist and mis-represent the latest meaningless uttering from SKY, Froome, Wiggins, Bralisford and Porte.

There are no points to be proven. Doping like tailwinds are rather subjective. My example of Wiggins and Froome is good. There are no positive tests but there is enough in their transformations and performance data to at least discuss the topic that they might have doped.

Or you can always go the other way which I saw on another more Sky friendly forum last year...

I clicked then had a look at a thread about Sky. From what I could tell a newbie was asking about doping at the upcoming Tour de France (2014). Then the resident forum poster whom I assume was very pro Sky stated that due to his inside information the following:

Froome 100% Clean.
Contador 50/50, dirty in the past.
Nibali 100% dirty.

Then 10 other people chimed in agreeing. I didn’t see any discussion or what these figures were based on etc. And this was shortly after TUE gate.

I had more of glance through the threads as I found this most intriguing. Found another one about Nibali. Apparently he is considered the worst descender in the peloton by the riders. Takes too many risks. They then went on to say the best descenders by far are in the grupetto but they are not seen on camera. This is due to the fact they make up their times losses on the descents.

So there you have it. It was so pro Sky they couldn’t’ even bring themselves to the point of agree that Nibali was a good decender. And that Froome was 100% clean even though he was caught what a somewhat legal TUE taking some serious medicine and crushing the field.

If you want more Sky friendly chat, then there are places you can go. If you don’t want to discuss doping then don’t come to a forum based 100% on doping. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[the sceptic]

If you want more Sky friendly chat, then there are places you can go. If you don’t want to discuss doping then don’t come to a forum based 100% on doping. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

I think what upsets them the most is that the "clean" sky get so much attention in the clinic compared to unrepentant dopers like Contador and Nibali.

 

[Benotti69]

..............
The Clinic regulars are desperately pining for Armstrong. But he's not coming back, so they're trying to recreate the mid 2000s years of that scandal in the social media age.

I think it was sky(Brailsford) who compared themselves to USPS and brought a whole heap of attention on themselves........

Wouldn't be the first time Sky have tried to play the PR game and lost.

 

[ebandit]

engleeeeesh

on an english language forum english speaking teams are most likely to be

discussed.................no big deal

Mark L

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So you're going to completely ignore that your premise is based on easily disprovable rubbish, maintain the insult that just so happens to cover anyone in the clinic that disagrees with you and then make a completely ridiculous comparison to try and fortify your position?

Well done.

It's simple logic, KB.

Maybe too simple, but it is simple logic...

 

[thehog]

I think what upsets them the most is that the "clean" sky get so much attention in the clinic compared to unrepentant dopers like Contador and Nibali.

I don't understand why they'd get upset of doping talk in a doping forum. Makes no sense.

If you want to talk about how awesome Froome is or what a great read Walsh's book was, then there's a couple of forums I can think of which you can knock your socks off with over the top claims of cleanliness.

 

[Afrank]

There are no points to be proven. Doping like tailwinds are rather subjective. My example of Wiggins and Froome is good. There are no positive tests but there is enough in their transformations and performance data to at least discuss the topic that they might have doped.

Or you can always go the other way which I saw on another more Sky friendly forum last year...

I clicked then had a look at a thread about Sky. From what I could tell a newbie was asking about doping at the upcoming Tour de France (2014). Then the resident forum poster whom I assume was very pro Sky stated that due to his inside information the following:

Froome 100% Clean.
Contador 50/50, dirty in the past.
Nibali 100% dirty.

Then 10 other people chimed in agreeing. I didn’t see any discussion or what these figures were based on etc. And this was shortly after TUE gate.

I had more of glance through the threads as I found this most intriguing. Found another one about Nibali. Apparently he is considered the worst descender in the peloton by the riders. Takes too many risks. They then went on to say the best descenders by far are in the grupetto but they are not seen on camera. This is due to the fact they make up their times losses on the descents.

So there you have it. It was so pro Sky they couldn’t’ even bring themselves to the point of agree that Nibali was a good decender. And that Froome was 100% clean even though he was caught what a somewhat legal TUE taking some serious medicine and crushing the field.

If you want more Sky friendly chat, then there are places you can go. If you don’t want to discuss doping then don’t come to a forum based 100% on doping. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

You share with me a link to this forum.

 

[Afrank]

I don't understand why they'd get upset of doping talk in a doping forum. Makes no sense.

If you want to talk about how awesome Froome is or what a great read Walsh's book was, then there's a couple of forums I can think of which you can knock your socks off with over the top claims of cleanliness.

Sport can be a very passionate and even emotional point of discussion for many. When the topic of doping is brought into it that emotion and passion can rise to even greater heights. I can see how a person might get upset about their favorite team or rider being accused of wrongdoing.

Having passion is a good thing; the trick is balancing that passion with the emotion to argue your own points logically and realize when the tempers have begun to rise too high and when it might be time to duck out of the conversation.

 

[Parker]

You share with me a link to this forum.

You'll be disappointed. thehog is not noted for his truthfulness and this more exaggerated nonsense I'm afraid.

 

[thehog]

You'll be disappointed. thehog is not noted for his truthfulness and this more exaggerated nonsense I'm afraid.

Are you still upset that you were shown up on your selected, selective comparative study of two riders plucked out of the air VS. team Sky threads?

That was funny

I PM'd the links to Afrank. I have no interest in starting a forum flame war. Its fairly straight forward to Google and find the threads if you shall choose.

Knock yourself out if you get tired from reading the Climb for the 13th time

 

[thehog]

Sport can be a very passionate and even emotional point of discussion for many. When the topic of doping is brought into it that emotion and passion can rise to even greater heights. I can see how a person might get upset about their favorite team or rider being accused of wrongdoing.

Having passion is a good thing; the trick is balancing that passion with the emotion to argue your own points logically and realize when the tempers have begun to rise too high and when it might be time to duck out of the conversation.

When one goes back and reads older threads on Sky without the current day/time pressure of being "right" you tend to see some very good posts in a different light. Everyone should take the time to go back in time now and then.

Then you see sheer absurdity. However, I do agree, passion can sometimes dilute what you are reading and typing, for better or worse.

 

[peloton]

Sport can be a very passionate and even emotional point of discussion for many. When the topic of doping is brought into it that emotion and passion can rise to even greater heights. I can see how a person might get upset about their favorite team or rider being accused of wrongdoing.

Having passion is a good thing; the trick is balancing that passion with the emotion to argue your own points logically and realize when the tempers have begun to rise too high and when it might be time to duck out of the conversation.

Very well said.

 

[Parker]

I PM'd the links to Afrank. I have no interest in starting a forum flame war. Its fairly straight forward to Google and find the threads if you shall choose.

So unable provide evidence again. It's important to let people judge for themselves.

So here's the Nibali one: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12951825
No-one says he's rubbish at descending (apart from a quote from a pro - probably Cavendish) or even bad. Just a bit overrated - particularly by the thread starter.

So what was the one that said Froome 100%, Contador 50/50, Nibali 100% dirty? Because I'm pretty sure that one would be shot down pretty quickly.

 

[Afrank]

Thank for the link Hog, and yes lets not start a flame war or anything like one about other forums.

 

[the sceptic]

Sport can be a very passionate and even emotional point of discussion for many. When the topic of doping is brought into it that emotion and passion can rise to even greater heights. I can see how a person might get upset about their favorite team or rider being accused of wrongdoing.

Having passion is a good thing; the trick is balancing that passion with the emotion to argue your own points logically and realize when the tempers have begun to rise too high and when it might be time to duck out of the conversation.

It's not a coincidence that 99% of sky believers are british.

patriotism is a scary thing.

 

[thehog]

So unable provide evidence again.

Well here's the Nibali one: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12951825

No-one says he's rubbish at descending (apart from a quote from a pro - probably Cavendish) or even bad. Just a bit overrated - particularly by the thread starter.

So what was the one that said Froome 100%, Contador 50/50, Nibali 100% dirty? Because I'm pretty sure that one would be shot down pretty quickly.

Still upset with your comparative study? You appear to forgotten that one fairly quickly and you're now in "BikeRadar" defense mode.

Classic.

Truth be told and context is very important. The OP talks about Nibali's "bunny hop" and how awesome it was. The Pro Sky bunch jump in to down play it because they just can't get to grips that Nibali is a fairly awesome all round rider (doping or not doping).

Love it. Leave you to it Parker. You clearly can't cope with a little constructive criticism.

 

[Parker]

Thank for the link Hog, and yes lets not start a flame war or anything like one about other forums.

Could you (or thehog) please send me the link for the thread relating to the relative cleanliness of Froome/Contador/Nibali. I think it is important in a public forum that we should be able to question assertions based on information in the public domain, don't you?

 

[Parker]

Truth be told and context is very important. The OP talks about Nibali's "bunny hop" and how awesome it was. The Pro Sky bunch jump in to down play it because they just can't get to grips that Nibali is a fairly awesome all round rider (doping or not doping).

One says it was awesome - others say it was pointless. Not quite what you claimed.
Maybe you could link to one of those threads where you repeatedly got caught out making stuff up. It was saddening how bad you were at debating without your back-up. (But at least you were better than 'The Truth')

 

[thehog]

Maybe you could link to one of those threads where you repeatedly got caught out making stuff up. It was saddening how bad you were at debating without your back-up.

Let's not be silly now Parker. And lets not start an endless posting war. Nothing to be gained.

I leave you with this with respect to "making stuff up":

But there's only one Nibali thread and one Contador. But a new Sky related one pops up almost every week. It's just simple trolling and if you can't see that then you're stupid.
The Clinic regulars are desperately pining for Armstrong. But he's not coming back, so they're trying to recreate the mid 2000s years of that scandal in the social media age.

 

[Parker]

I leave you with this with respect to "making stuff up":

Maybe 'almost every week' was a touch of artistic licence (but not far off). But there's nothing made up there. Maybe a faulty opinion but no straight up falsehoods.

 

[thehog]

Maybe 'almost every week' was a touch of artistic licence (but not far off). But there's nothing made up there. Maybe a faulty opinion but no straight up falsehoods.

Good for you. And most importantly if you believe it, it must be true