Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[python]

You've destroyed the thread.
Enough.

the hogg, don't count on maseratti hearing you. i count at least 4 posters took him to task just in the last few posts about quoting irrelevant passages, he still wants to deny it in order to look like an internet winner.

Sure, it was in relation to the AP article, I will snip to the relevant parts

again, that is IRrelevant.

i asked you a simple direct question, where did i say what you attributed to me ?

It did not say that the transfusion theory could not be contested or your suggestion that CAS have to consider it not credible

 

[Dr. Maserati]

the hogg, don't count on maseratti hearing you. i count at least 4 posters took him to task just in the last few posts about quoting irrelevant passages, he still wants to deny it in order to look like an internet winner.

again, that is IRrelevant.

i asked you a simple direct question, where did i say what you attributed to me ?

I answered your question - I even highlighted it, the article did not say what you claimed it said.

BTW - Who are the 4??
Or is this another one of your posts where you will refuse to back up what you say.


I see you're back making your juvenile comments - whats laughable is you are the one who has continued to berate and insult me, and now tells me what is irrelevant and even suggest I filled the board (which were in reply to your posts) - I have asked you to back up what you write and you rarely do, seems someone is trying to suppress any argument by acting superior and bullying anyone from questioning it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Haven't been here in a while but thought I would check in on what's the latest. So between the back and forth petty bickering, can someone give me an idea what's going on with Berti's case? I mean the nitty gritty, not a link to the main page from a few weeks ago.

 

[python]

I answered your question

no you did not.
you tried to obfuscate. will take it slowly again and as many times as it takes..

here's my post you quoted. the post addressed to 2 posters who unlike you understood it and had no problems with it.

a discussion about joint probability turned in to a disjoint discussion...the path i predicted only few posts up as highly probable and likely to get disjoint. again, we can have fun and compare apples to oranges but that’s not what was taking place in the courtroom.

at this point in time having followed most of the developments closely for the last 18 months, i believe that the leaks from 2 weeks ago are indeed as close to what actually happened in the court room as we were let on up to now. the evidence points to a different decision-making path, albeit also based on statistics, than the 2 learned gentlemen above are arguing….

it’s quite true that eventually the panel will have to chose btw the steak and the plasma bag. but it will almost certainly not be based on impractical and misleading analysis of joint probability of the 2 events.

in stead, the panel has considered each event credibility on its own merits as based on the evidence presented by both sides -transfusion scenario against transfusion scenarios, contamination against contamination…

for ex, the article clearly states that the 2-step transfusion theory was swept aside b/c bert’s lawyers proved it ‘impossible‘. well, that’s an inaccurate terminology perhaps due to the mistake by the journo or the legal rhetoric of bert’s lawyers…regardless, the cas merely had to consider the 2 step transfusion not credible rather than impossible.

i ran my own investigation as to the cas thinking and tried to promote the appropriate discussion as to the reasoning by starting a separate thread but, as often happens in the clinic it went nowhere…good we have only few days left to wait

you wrote in relation to the above post

It did not say that the transfusion theory could not be contested or your suggestion that CAS have to consider it not credible

a simple a direct question, again, where in the post above it says what you attributed to me ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

no you did not.
you tried to obfuscate. will take it slowly again and as many times as it takes..

here's my post you quoted. the post addressed to 2 posters who unlike you understood it and had no problems with it.


you wrote in relation to the above post


a simple a direct question, again, where in the post above it says what you attributed to me ?

And the answer to my question?? (of course....)

Anyway - to answer your question because it is your thread- check out the word IT "it did not say...." - "it" is the article which in the original response I even highlighted the paragraph.

 

[AussieGoddess]

Haven't been here in a while but thought I would check in on what's the latest. So between the back and forth petty bickering, can someone give me an idea what's going on with Berti's case? I mean the nitty gritty, not a link to the main page from a few weeks ago.

In essence - nothing.

the CAS are still deliberating/writing their judgement.

They did not allow Micheal Ashendon to testify in some parts, and also ask each party if they had an issue with that or would like a new panel ... all said no.

So they are back to writing their judgement and we are still waiting. Judgment is supposed to be handed down by end of January.

All the rest of the last 10 pages are just rehashing old arguments. Nothing you have missed.

 

[python]

And the answer to my question?? (of course....)

Anyway - to answer your question because it is your thread- check out the word IT "it did not say...." - "it" is the article which in the original response I even highlighted the paragraph.

you've been complaining about the hog exposing you and yet you continue with irrelevant references and jabs as if it's not obvious you have nothing else.

i'm asking you for the n-time: where did i say what you attributed to me ? where did i say the article said that the transfusion theory could not be contested ?
where in the context of my post i charged cas with duties i have not ?

again, unlike the two posters who my post was directed to and who had no problems with it, you CHOSE to invent and in stead of doubting that you may have misunderstood, yourself you proceeded to argue with what was never there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you've been complaining about the hog exposing you and yet you continue with irrelevant references and jabs as if it's not obvious you have nothing else.

i'm asking you for the n-time: where did i say what you attributed to me ? where did i say the article said that the transfusion theory could not be contested ?
where in the context of my post i charged cas with duties i have not ?

again, unlike the two posters who my post was directed to and who had no problems with it, you CHOSE to invent and in stead of doubting that you may have misunderstood, yourself you proceeded to argue with what was never there.

A few posts back you accused me of "trying to win the internet" - and now you want me to explain something for the n-time.... that I explained each time?? Lol. And yet I ask you something and ...silence. Who were the 4 posters BTW??


To the Blue - ah thats whats upsetting you - I did quote your whole post I usually do anyway but given your current state I would not edit your posts - because you would accuse me of editing out content, or I don't understand, or ruining context..

So - in reply to your post I highlighted the complete relevant paragraph, I even went further and underlined the key words.

And then just so you may work out that it was the article I was referring to I started it with "The AP article?....."

 

[python]

we are going to ignore your red herring and gaming and most importantly everyone else can easily see who and why was taking to task your obsession with irrelevant quoting.

So - in reply to your post I highlighted[/B

] your hilites are further obfuscation. every one understands that we are discussing the ap article. you are gaming to put simple questions out of context.

again, i am quoting my own post in full

a discussion about joint probability turned in to a disjoint discussion...the path i predicted only few posts up as highly probable and likely to get disjoint. again, we can have fun and compare apples to oranges but that’s not what was taking place in the courtroom.

at this point in time having followed most of the developments closely for the last 18 months, i believe that the leaks from 2 weeks ago are indeed as close to what actually happened in the court room as we were let on up to now. the evidence points to a different decision-making path, albeit also based on statistics, than the 2 learned gentlemen above are arguing….

it’s quite true that eventually the panel will have to chose btw the steak and the plasma bag. but it will almost certainly not be based on impractical and misleading analysis of joint probability of the 2 events.

in stead, the panel has considered each event credibility on its own merits as based on the evidence presented by both sides -transfusion scenario against transfusion scenarios, contamination against contamination…

for ex, the article clearly states that the 2-step transfusion theory was swept aside b/c bert’s lawyers proved it ‘impossible‘. well, that’s an inaccurate terminology perhaps due to the mistake by the journo or the legal rhetoric of bert’s lawyers…regardless, the cas merely had to consider the 2 step transfusion not credible rather than impossible.

you wrote

It did not say that the transfusion theory could not be contested or your suggestion that CAS have to consider it not credible

where did i say in the post above that the article said what you attributed to me. please point. it's in front of you. why would you need to put words in my mouth ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

we are going to ignore your red herring and gaming and most importantly everyone else can easily see who and why was taking to task your obsession with irrelevant quoting.
] your hilites are further obfuscation. every one understands that we are discussing the ap article. you are gaming to put simple questions out of context.

[\QUOTE]
When you say "red herring"- I assume you mean the red herring of 4 people? Ya, I can understand why you wish to ignore that.

again, i am quoting my own post in full
you wrote



where did i say in the post above that the article said what you attributed to me. please point. it's in front of you. why would you need to put words in my mouth ?

Apologies - I know I should have asked your permission before logging out / but I'm travelling and won't be able Ro assist you Amy further with your breakdownn I mean investigation.

 

[python]

Apologies - I know I should have asked your permission before logging out / but I'm travelling and won't be able Ro assist you Amy further with your breakdownn I mean investigation.

your apology is of course more deflection. i want you stay logged and provide substance and explain why would you need to put words in the poster's mouth ?

again, where did I say that the article said the transfusion theory could not be contested ? how is it relevant to the joint probability discussed ?

 

[ElChingon]

Haven't been here in a while but thought I would check in on what's the latest. So between the back and forth petty bickering, can someone give me an idea what's going on with Berti's case? I mean the nitty gritty, not a link to the main page from a few weeks ago.

We're still on a holding pattern, patiently waiting...

Odd I could see your post through all the new in-post spam.

 

[Cimber]

Haven't been here in a while but thought I would check in on what's the latest. So between the back and forth petty bickering, can someone give me an idea what's going on with Berti's case? I mean the nitty gritty, not a link to the main page from a few weeks ago.

Delays and more delays. A WADA expert rejected by CAS. Final verdict expected next week (according to the latest CAS announcement)

 

[doolols]

again, where did I say that the article said the transfusion theory could not be contested ? how is it relevant to the joint probability discussed ?

Can I respectfully suggest you give up? Is it really that important to you? This thread is getting filled with so much python / Dr M to-and-fro crap. Please, for the sake of everyone else who reads this, can you give it a rest?

 

[python]

I thought I posted here before, you guys need to be nicer to each other, please dont continue with the petty insults mr python...

i do not believe pamperq handled the situation objectively though in the past when i did deserve an infraction, such impression never visited me.

respectfully,

python

 

[spetsa]

Can I respectfully suggest you give up? Is it really that important to you? This thread is getting filled with so much python / Dr M to-and-fro crap. Please, for the sake of everyone else who reads this, can you give it a rest?

+1000
The entire clinic has become nothing other than a P*ssing contest between the resident know it all and anyone dumb enough to go back and forth with the omniscient Dr.

 

[Benotti69]

+1000
The entire clinic has become nothing other than a P*ssing contest between the resident know it all and anyone dumb enough to go back and forth with the omniscient Dr.

Aaah come on isnt it about time someone took the good Dottore to task. His horse was rising higher and higher.

Chapeau Python, he is just showing us it is a 3 legged mule

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Ok, everybody take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard...... there now, don't you feel better?

The ruling is due in the next week. Stay cool until then. Perhaps we just should close the thread until the ruling comes out....

Susan

 

[Aleajactaest]

+1000
The entire clinic has become nothing other than a P*ssing contest between the resident know it all and anyone dumb enough to go back and forth with the omniscient Dr.

It's Ok, if they don't like what you say, they'll get the Admins to remove it..... ;-)

 

[spetsa]

Ok, everybody take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard...... there now, don't you feel better?

The ruling is due in the next week. Stay cool until then. Perhaps we just should close the thread until the ruling comes out....

Susan

I understand the time constraints involved, but maybe you (collectively) should try to control the nonsense, before this entire area of the forum loses all of its relevancy due to what is allowed to continue from a few.

As Brodeal stated in the moderators forum the other day, there really is becoming less and less of a reason to even look into threads out of curiousity, and IMO it has nothing to do with the lack of any "new" information.

 

[thehog]

Ok, everybody take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard...... there now, don't you feel better?

The ruling is due in the next week. Stay cool until then. Perhaps we just should close the thread until the ruling comes out....

Susan

Susan - Can I be a moderator? I think I'd be good at it.

 

[doolols]

Perhaps we just should close the thread until the ruling comes out....

Noooooo, don't do that Just kick those two off it if they continue. I don't mind the continual to and fro of rumour and speculation, and each time I come in here, I swap between thinking he's goose is cooked and thinking he's going to
get away with it.

But IMO there's just too much personal stuff going on at the moment.

 

[Cloxxki]

I bet €5 there will be another delay.
And after the ruling, which-ever it is, there will be another appeal.
Meanwhile, Contador will keep winning races.

Anyone like to enlighten me? All I hear is WADA. Wasn't the UCI also appealing? Aren't they suppose to DO something then? Of did they somehow fulfil their role? I see sports unions often be such bad prosecutors, it seems like they want the athlete to get off.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Anyone like to enlighten me? All I hear is WADA. Wasn't the UCI also appealing? Aren't they suppose to DO something then? Of did they somehow fulfil their role? I see sports unions often be such bad prosecutors, it seems like they want the athlete to get off.

UCI just want the whole case to be examined again because they suspected political influence.

 

[nowhereman]

I understand the time constraints involved, but maybe you (collectively) should try to control the nonsense, before this entire area of the forum loses all of its relevancy due to what is allowed to continue from a few.

As Brodeal stated in the moderators forum the other day, there really is becoming less and less of a reason to even look into threads out of curiousity, and IMO it has nothing to do with the lack of any "new" information.

I agree with these thoughts completely. I look in once in a while, nowadays. But after reading a few posts, in most of the threads, I have no desire to take part. The opinions in this case, in particular, have brought out some of the worst, most illogical arguments, I've heard. And so much of the opinionating is driven by fan biases, no matter how bizarre some of these opinions have been. I hope the conclusion given by CAS, is the end of the case. Then we could all just move onward.