Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[sittingbison]

Marginal evidence

 

[The Hitch]

I don't think he claim to have full blown bilharzia second time around, just trace amounts requiring precautionary medicine.

not really, in 2012 it suddenly became bad enough to stop him from even entering races.

“then lingered on for another two weeks, preventing me from making the start at Paris-Nice,”

It is impossible for the disease to have no impact on him just as he wants to save his contract in the 2011 Vuelta, then suddenly become 10x worse when the race finishes and stop him from even being able to do his job after the 2011 Vuelta is over.

 

[The Hitch]

3) Maybe when I 'ignore' someone, I've actually just gone off and done something else with my life. I don't live here.

Yeah, except anytime your name gets called out, you reappear faster than Froome's Bilharzia after a successful gt. And yesterday I saw you getting all upset about someone in the silly glossary thread saying the words "coined in the clinic" about the words "hooker and blow". which shows that you were spending your time reading through that totally meaningless thread looking for things to get angry about.

Your repeated need to try and convince others (though mostly to try and convince yourself) that you are this great success story who doesn't spend much time here while everyone else is a loser who lives with their mom etc when compared to your actual behavior, is one of the funniest things on here.

 

[thehog]

Marginal evidence

Trace amounts of evidence

 

[sniper]

If you don't think that something has happened or that something doesn't exist, it's not because there is evidence that it doesn't exist but because of the lack of evidence that it does.

in the absence of positive tests, the available evidence (historical cycling data, general patterns of behavior among pro-athletes) suggests, i.e. makes it plausible to assume, that Sky are doping.
historical data and social patterns of behavior count as evidence in most parts of the world.
But go ahead, you're not the first to ignore objective data.

 

[Merckx index]

First of all for the bilharzia. So if, as you think, he is lying about it all (as opposed to bad reporting) - what does that show? It doesn't excuse anything. Just bad form, which doesn't need an excuse.

Parker1: Nothing remarkable about being treated twice. Probably had trace infection after the first time.
Parker2: Oh, he was treated five times? Probably for maintenance.
Parker3: Oh, his own doctor said it wasn’t for maintenance? Maybe he lied, or maybe it was bad reporting.
Parker4*: Oh, it wasn’t bad reporting? So he lied, big deal.
Parker5*: Oh, your point wasn’t that he lied about the treatments? It was that schisto treatments don’t correlate with his performance? Big deal.
Parker6*: Oh, Froome/Sky have implied that schisto could account for his change in performance? Who cares, it's weak evidence.

*possible future state

1) Where's this strong evidence then. Leinders is decent evidence but getting weaker by the day. But other than that 'insider' bobbins's list only offered up some ex employees who doped a decade ago and a TUE - it's not exactly Puerto or Festina. "Highly informative" is very subjective.

Strong evidence for what? My point was that you jump from disagreement over the strength of some of the evidence vs. Sky to concluding that the entire Clinic is useless.

I might agree with you on the strength of some of the evidence vs. Sky. It's conflating this with the entire Clinic that I don't get.

2) Some good advice for everyone. If you want to make a point keep it short and concise. tl;dr isn't internet slang by accident. If you can't make you point in 50-100 words, you're not making a strong point.

You can’t explain schisto and how Froome has twisted that story in 100 words. Sometimes the words are necessary.

3) Maybe when I 'ignore' someone, I've actually just gone off and done something else with my life. I don't live here.

The second time I made that point you posted immediately before and after me in that thread. You were around.

It's not a big deal, except you keep harping on how certain posters don't respond to you.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,
It's not about Parker, or thehog, or any other member. Sure it's interesting to read debunking an argument, but it can too easily veer into debunking the person thus starting a flame war

Please, before eagerly hitting the send button make sure you are playing the ball and not the man

Cheers
Bison

 

[JRTinMA]

Gentle(wo)men,
It's not about Parker, or thehog, or any other member. Sure it's interesting to read debunking an argument, but it can too easily veer into debunking the person thus starting a flame war

Please, before eagerly hitting the send button make sure you are playing the ball and not the man

Cheers
Bison

How about telling these ****sticks to take to an appropriate thread?

 

[LaFlorecita]

How about telling these ****sticks to take to an appropriate thread?

Lol that's what I thought too

 

[Benotti69]

Gentle(wo)men,
It's not about Parker, or thehog, or any other member. Sure it's interesting to read debunking an argument, but it can too easily veer into debunking the person thus starting a flame war

Please, before eagerly hitting the send button make sure you are playing the ball and not the man

Cheers
Bison

You are Vickers and I just won the internet

 

[thehog]

You are Vickers and I just won the internet

Thanks Martin.

 

[TANK91]

Jesus it is 2015 and we still got the same people on about Sky and doping they are infactuated by it. Sky did not even do well last year. I mean take Astana for example can you imagine if Froome won the TDF and many riders from his squad were busted what it would be like on here?

It would probably brake cyclingnews servers. Seriously we get it he got onto the scene in a wierd way but it is now 2015 not 2011 just let it go. Nibali won last years TDF yet were still talking about Sky. How many positives do Sky have again... The clinic is an embarassing forum as it is so biast. Look at all the pages for proof of that.

 

[nhowson]

Jesus it is 2015 and we still got the same people on about Sky and doping they are infactuated by it. Sky did not even do well last year. I mean take Astana for example can you imagine if Froome won the TDF and many riders from his squad were busted what it would be like on here?

It would probably brake cyclingnews servers. Seriously we get it he got onto the scene in a wierd way but it is now 2015 not 2011 just let it go. Nibali won last years TDF yet were still talking about Sky. How many positives do Sky have again... The clinic is an embarassing forum as it is so biast. Look at all the pages for proof of that.

While I agree that they shouldn't still be talking about Sky and bringing up mostly the same points, there are three reasons this happens:

1) Pro-Sky users often fiercely defend the team, which leads to more debate and thus more posts. This kind of defence is not so regularly present on other rider/team threads.

2) Whenever most other (English speaking) forums talk about doping, there is an awful lot of bias towards Sky.

3) As an English speaking forum, users are more likely to talk about English speaking teams.

I wish we could drop it and move on, but 1) means the conversation drags on and on, as neither side is ever going to convince the other. My view on it is pretty irrelevant, as I only really care about what I see out on the road and one could reasonably accuse every rider of doping at some stage in their careers. Occasionally, I am interested in the broader themes of doping in sport, and find it a bit more interesting than giving blame out like candy, whether an athlete deserves it or not.

 

[The Hitch]

Jesus it is 2015 and we still got the same people on about Sky and doping they are infactuated by it. Sky did not even do well last year. I mean take Astana for example can you imagine if Froome won the TDF and many riders from his squad were busted what it would be like on here?

It would probably brake cyclingnews servers. Seriously we get it he got onto the scene in a wierd way but it is now 2015 not 2011 just let it go. Nibali won last years TDF yet were still talking about Sky. How many positives do Sky have again... The clinic is an embarassing forum as it is so biast. Look at all the pages for proof of that.

You are right if froome won the tour last year it would brake cn servers. But I'm.not sure what you want. Everyone already said Astana and Nibali is doping. Including pretty much all Nibali fans and all vino fans. What do you want? Longer threads? Well then bring some dumb Nibali fans over or create pro Nibali sockpuppet yourself that will say Nibali must be clean because he never tested positive, that working with vino proves nothing or claim that nibs has been working with a swimming coach who figured out more about cycling in a year than the combined rest of the sport has in a century . I guarantee you the Nibali clinic thread post count is going to climb faster than Nibali on managed himself.

Not as fast as froome ones maybe, but then Astana has only won one, didn't climb as fast didn't dominate the season and nibali did have early talent.

 

[Archibald]

Am I missing something? I just read the last couple of pages, but can't work out what this to do with member suspensions...

 

[ebandit]

suspense

suspensions must be earned..............................

Mark L

 

[nhowson]

Am I missing something? I just read the last couple of pages, but can't work out what this to do with member suspensions...

It had devolved over the last week, Parker had a bit of a to-do about undue bias against Sky in the clinic, which came from... Somewhere? It has all quietened down now anyway. For now.

 

[TANK91]

You are right if froome won the tour last year it would brake cn servers. But I'm.not sure what you want. Everyone already said Astana and Nibali is doping. Including pretty much all Nibali fans and all vino fans. What do you want? Longer threads? Well then bring some dumb Nibali fans over or create pro Nibali sockpuppet yourself that will say Nibali must be clean because he never tested positive, that working with vino proves nothing or claim that nibs has been working with a swimming coach who figured out more about cycling in a year than the combined rest of the sport has in a century . I guarantee you the Nibali clinic thread post count is going to climb faster than Nibali on managed himself.

Not as fast as froome ones maybe, but then Astana has only won one, didn't climb as fast didn't dominate the season and nibali did have early talent.

No you just seem to hate the fact Froome came along and started winning. Im sorry what does the fact that someone has talent young change? You think because Contador and Andy Schleck(doped to the gills) did great young that that is the norm? Surely if you are 21 and dope it does not matter if you dope at 25. Not like Froome just turned up 30 years old, maybe do some research when cyclists were getting results. Cadel Evans 25 15th in the Giro, Samu(you're hero) LBL 25, Froome VAE just turned 26 yet Froome is the bad guy. I am a huge Froome fan yet i aint silly he clearly dopes but they all do why isit so wrong for Froome to do it?.

Imagine Sky picking up Saxo's leftovers like De Jonghe what this place would be like, De Jonghe joins Saxo there is barely a word. You cannot win. Saxo were dirty as hell last year, hardly anything was said compared to Sky. Rafal Majka was 2nd best climber in the TDF and i imagine if he took GC seriously at the start he would been 2nd all after doing the Giro aswell. Mick Rogers, how many were saying he gonna show Sky were on something?. Rogers has been just as good at Saxo than Sky lol.

You cannot deny it people who live in Froome and Sky threads chear for dopers, yet what Froome is doing is so wrong. "Can not wait till he is busted the cheat", yet there a fan of a doper.

 

[sniper]

No you just seem to hate the fact Froome came along and started winning...snipped...
You cannot deny it people who live in Froome and Sky threads chear for dopers, yet what Froome is doing is so wrong. "Can not wait till he is busted the cheat", yet there a fan of a doper.

there's a bunch of guys enjoying themselves while discussing froome and doping.
then there's a bunch of guys who seem rather troubled by the fact that another bunch of guys are enjoying themselves while discussing froome and doping.

 

[Hugh Januss]

No you just seem to hate the fact Froome came along and started winning. Im sorry what does the fact that someone has talent young change? You think because Contador and Andy Schleck(doped to the gills) did great young that that is the norm? Surely if you are 21 and dope it does not matter if you dope at 25. Not like Froome just turned up 30 years old, maybe do some research when cyclists were getting results. Cadel Evans 25 15th in the Giro, Samu(you're hero) LBL 25, Froome VAE just turned 26 yet Froome is the bad guy. I am a huge Froome fan yet i aint silly he clearly dopes but they all do why isit so wrong for Froome to do it?.

Imagine Sky picking up Saxo's leftovers like De Jonghe what this place would be like, De Jonghe joins Saxo there is barely a word. You cannot win. Saxo were dirty as hell last year, hardly anything was said compared to Sky. Rafal Majka was 2nd best climber in the TDF and i imagine if he took GC seriously at the start he would been 2nd all after doing the Giro aswell. Mick Rogers, how many were saying he gonna show Sky were on something?. Rogers has been just as good at Saxo than Sky lol.

You cannot deny it people who live in Froome and Sky threads chear for dopers, yet what Froome is doing is so wrong. "Can not wait till he is busted the cheat", yet there a fan of a doper.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, including in the post you were reacting to (not responding, that would imply you actually understood the post) there is a good reason Froome doping takes up so much more bandwidth. You, and Martin Vickers and the whole merry little band. If I were to open a new thread called "does Contador dope?" it would get 4 responses ranging between "of course" and "what a stupid question" and then it would drop off the first page. Only Froome, who is at least as obvious as Contador, has a small army of fanboys that are willing to spend hours a day debating the point. I am not sure where this delusional myopia comes from, but that is what drives the debate.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, including in the post you were reacting to (not responding, that would imply you actually understood the post) there is a good reason Froome doping takes up so much more bandwidth. You, and Martin Vickers and the whole merry little band. If I were to open a new thread called "does Contador dope?" it would get 4 responses ranging between "of course" and "what a stupid question" and then it would drop off the first page. Only Froome, who is at least as obvious as Contador, has a small army of fanboys that are willing to spend hours a day debating the point. I am not sure where this delusional myopia comes from, but that is what drives the debate.

There is no excuses or explanation for myopic myopia.

It is like peeps who watch video of cycling and calculate power etc.

 

[python]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, including in the post you were reacting to (not responding, that would imply you actually understood the post) there is a good reason Froome doping takes up so much more bandwidth. You, and Martin Vickers and the whole merry little band. If I were to open a new thread called "does Contador dope?" it would get 4 responses ranging between "of course" and "what a stupid question" and then it would drop off the first page. Only Froome, who is at least as obvious as Contador, has a small army of fanboys that are willing to spend hours a day debating the point. I am not sure where this delusional myopia comes from, but that is what drives the debate.

good post, but wait...

i cant recall posting in any of the pro-sky or anti- sky treads, so my rep is 100% neutral. but since the obviously off topic discussion is allowed, i will pose my question - isn't action generally equal the reaction...if the anti-sky fans stop will the sky/anti sky threads sink too ?

it is like creating a bunch sock puppets, then throwing them all into the fire to stoke the fire, and when they all caught and the perma ban is due, they the original suddenly become the member of the civil community....

 

[ebandit]

troubadeur

As has been pointed out repeatedly, including in the post you were reacting to (not responding, that would imply you actually understood the post) there is a good reason Froome doping takes up so much more bandwidth. You, and Martin Vickers and the whole merry little band. If I were to open a new thread called "does Contador dope?" it would get 4 responses ranging between "of course" and "what a stupid question" and then it would drop off the first page. Only Froome, who is at least as obvious as Contador, has a small army of fanboys that are willing to spend hours a day debating the point. I am not sure where this delusional myopia comes from, but that is what drives the debate.

seriously? outrage from them................claiming outrage from others

ffs this is a forum.............all points are valid not just those one agrees
with


Mark L

 

[sniper]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, including in the post you were reacting to (not responding, that would imply you actually understood the post) there is a good reason Froome doping takes up so much more bandwidth. You, and Martin Vickers and the whole merry little band. If I were to open a new thread called "does Contador dope?" it would get 4 responses ranging between "of course" and "what a stupid question" and then it would drop off the first page. Only Froome, who is at least as obvious as Contador, has a small army of fanboys that are willing to spend hours a day debating the point. I am not sure where this delusional myopia comes from, but that is what drives the debate.

good post.

I'd add as reasons
(a) the fact that Sky put themselves on this incredulous anti-doping high horse*
(b) the fact that Britain is going through a golden sports era and its people seem to have collectively put on the blinders. It just nags and screams for a wake up call;
(c) of all current proteams Sky are most clearly 'affiliated' to the UCI which is something we've seen from USPS and it's something that clearly stands in the way of cycling regaining any form of credibility.
(d) the ridiculous nature of Sky's performances over a period of several years. What are the odds of having two consecutive Tour de France winners, both from Britain and coinciding with the London Olympics...

*this is also why JV/Garmin/Ryder threads are comparatively popular

 

[thehog]

It had devolved over the last week, Parker had a bit of a to-do about undue bias against Sky in the clinic, which came from... Somewhere? It has all quietened down now anyway. For now.

Parker and TailWindHome tried to explain Wiggins winning the Tour as a “few extra efforts” over 3000km vs the track. Apparently GC favourites never attack on the flats and they can rest in the pack until those handful of efforts. Riding 3000kms over varying terrain is easy, apparently.