Sagan Clean?

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Red, as we're on the next page already, you may have missed Tienus' reply (bottom previous page).

Also, for more elaborate discussion of the heat bloom and how strong/weak the Stade 2 evidence is, see this thread :
viewtopic.php?p=1921435#p1921435
Especially pages 3, 4 and 5.
There too, Tienus' posts are imo the most interesting ones.
 
Re:

Tienus said:
My French spelling is horrible but this is what I make of the french translator voice:

Cookson:
Peut etre il y a une explication tous simple. Cést peut etre de friction.
Maybe there is a simple explanation. Maybe its friction.

Journalist:
on peux pas dire il y a un moteur dans velo. On peux avoir une suspision. I'l est controle apres la course
We cant say there is a motor in the bike. We can have a suspission. It has been checked after the race.
absolutement

il est finish quatrieme mais a la fin yl ni a plus de lumiere dans les pedalier
Hij finished fourth but he was no longer glowing.

c:
interessant


Stade 2 filmed at strade Bianchi and at a grand fondo. Bikes where only checked at strade and not at the grand fondo iirc.

I have no knowledge of motor technologie or heat cameras so I cant give a valuable judgement on the thermal images


Further, if the bike was indeed checked, and I grant it's possible or even likely this is BS, this would implicate the UCI directly in a cover-up if there were definitive evidence of actual motor-doping by Sagan. Why is no one running with the story? The World Champion implicated in motor-doping? Sounds wildly click-worthy and news-worthy. But no one is running with it? It's confusing.

Femke and the Barfield emails implicate the UCi also directly.

Thanks Tienus, appreciate the quick response.

Cookson is replying "absolutemont" to the question of whether the bike was checked, am I reading that right? Well unless they always check all the bikes that's absolutely a lie. No way he knows for sure which riders are checked.

I remain wildly skeptical of the Stade 2 claims in this case, however. Agree with "we can't say there's a motor in the bike" that's for sure.

Not surprised no one is running with this story. Way too thin.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
The evidence may or may not be thin, but 'nobody running with the story' in itself is not an indication of thin evidence.
Nobody runs with anything these days unless it's 100% bullet proof.
 
Re:

sniper said:
The evidence may or may not be thin, but 'nobody running with the story' in itself is not an indication of thin evidence.
Nobody runs with anything these days unless it's 100% bullet proof.

While I agree not running with the (lack of) evidence isn't necessarily evidence of anything, please tell me you're kidding regarding the press not running with anything that's not "100% bullet proof". That's flat out comedy.

If there was anything remotely convincing about what they presented, it would be getting picked up. But I agree that's a side point.
 
Re:

sniper said:
Red, as we're on the next page already, you may have missed Tienus' reply (bottom previous page).

Also, for more elaborate discussion of the heat bloom and how strong/weak the Stade 2 evidence is, see this thread :
viewtopic.php?p=1921435#p1921435
Especially pages 3, 4 and 5.
There too, Tienus' posts are imo the most interesting ones.

Well I see you post something about a glowing (front!) tire being "photographic evidence". When in fact many tires from many different riders in that video are glowing. Front, rear, tires, hubs... Gee, could it be brake friction or friction from contact with the ground?

viewtopic.php?p=2053441#p2053441

Just way to quick to leap to conclusions.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
sniper said:
The evidence may or may not be thin, but 'nobody running with the story' in itself is not an indication of thin evidence.
Nobody runs with anything these days unless it's 100% bullet proof.

While I agree not running with the (lack of) evidence isn't necessarily evidence of anything, please tell me you're kidding regarding the press not running with anything that's not "100% bullet proof". That's flat out comedy.
For cycling journalism, while it may be comedy, unfortunately it's also reality.

A parallel: the Froome 2007 fax being forged with photoshop is rather obvious, and plenty of evidence to back up that claim, but nobody's even come close to running with it.

If there was anything remotely convincing about what they presented, it would be getting picked up.
Jumping to conclusions rather quickly here.
What about: "If there was anything remotely convincing about what they presented, UCI and/or Sagan's lawyers would be all over it like flies on a pile of fresh dogshit ensuring it won't see the light of day."
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
red_flanders said:
sniper said:
The evidence may or may not be thin, but 'nobody running with the story' in itself is not an indication of thin evidence.
Nobody runs with anything these days unless it's 100% bullet proof.

While I agree not running with the (lack of) evidence isn't necessarily evidence of anything, please tell me you're kidding regarding the press not running with anything that's not "100% bullet proof". That's flat out comedy.
For cycling journalism, while it may be comedy, unfortunately it's also reality.

If there was anything remotely convincing about what they presented, it would be getting picked up.
Jumping to conclusions rather quickly here.
What about: "If there was anything remotely convincing about what they presented, UCI and/or Sagan's lawyers would be all over it like flies on a pile of fresh dogshit ensuring it won't see the light of day."

A parallel: the Froome 2007 fax being forged with photoshop is rather obvious, and plenty of evidence to back up that claim, but nobody's even come close to running with it.

Sagan's lawyers seem to have been ineffective in suppressing the Stade 2 documentary, or threatening after the fact, if such was their intent.

I'm not going to go down the road of that fax.

I offer no conclusions, only questions. The evidence supports no conclusions. Suffice it to say if they had video of Sagan's bike that looked like the first test bike in the video, every news outlet in the country would be running it. But they don't. They have a ~3-5 degree heat bloom on a bb for an indeterminate amount of time, on a bike where the chains and tires are glowing far hotter also for short times. It's entirely inconclusive and I'm starting to think not even suspicious.

The bike changes are suspicious. This video is thin. Very thin.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
sniper said:
Red, as we're on the next page already, you may have missed Tienus' reply (bottom previous page).

Also, for more elaborate discussion of the heat bloom and how strong/weak the Stade 2 evidence is, see this thread :
viewtopic.php?p=1921435#p1921435
Especially pages 3, 4 and 5.
There too, Tienus' posts are imo the most interesting ones.

Well I see you post something about a glowing (front!) tire being "photographic evidence". When in fact many tires from many different riders in that video are glowing. Front, rear, tires, hubs... Gee, could it be brake friction or friction from contact with the ground?

viewtopic.php?p=2053441#p2053441

Just way to quick to leap to conclusions.
When I say "tire glowing" (obviously) I meant "wheel" (totem pro parte), more precisely "rear hub".
My bad, I 'm not well enough acquainted with the english terms for bike parts, but the context should've made that pretty obvious.

Yes, it's evidence, but since when does that mean anything in procycling?

.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
...

Sagan's lawyers seem to have been ineffective in suppressing the Stade 2 documentary, or threatening after the fact, if such was their intent.

I'm not going to go down the road of that fax.

I offer no conclusions, only questions. The evidence supports no conclusions. Suffice it to say if they had video of Sagan's bike that looked like the first test bike in the video, every news outlet in the country would be running it. But they don't. They have a ~3-5 degree heat bloom on a bb for an indeterminate amount of time, on a bike where the chains and tires are glowing far hotter also for short times. It's entirely inconclusive and I'm starting to think not even suspicious.

The bike changes are suspicious. This video is thin. Very thin.
That's fair enough.

If I were a journo I know I'd be contacting Stade 2.
But knowing what I know about cycling journos, I seriously doubt anybody has even taken the effort.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
red_flanders said:
sniper said:
Red, as we're on the next page already, you may have missed Tienus' reply (bottom previous page).

Also, for more elaborate discussion of the heat bloom and how strong/weak the Stade 2 evidence is, see this thread :
viewtopic.php?p=1921435#p1921435
Especially pages 3, 4 and 5.
There too, Tienus' posts are imo the most interesting ones.

Well I see you post something about a glowing (front!) tire being "photographic evidence". When in fact many tires from many different riders in that video are glowing. Front, rear, tires, hubs... Gee, could it be brake friction or friction from contact with the ground?

viewtopic.php?p=2053441#p2053441

Just way to quick to leap to conclusions.
When I say "tire glowing" (obviously) I meant "wheel" (totem pro parte), more precisely "rear hub".
My bad, I 'm not well enough acquainted with the english terms for bike parts, but the context should've made that pretty obvious.

Yes, it's evidence, but since when does that mean anything in procycling?

.

It seemed you were referring to this post: viewtopic.php?p=1950578#p1950578

I could be mistaken, but that's the context of the thread.

You said:

sniper said:
props for that tienus, great finds.
Make that awesome finds.

and again, there's the photographic evidence.
primoz' wheel was glowing.
other wheels apparently weren't.

When clearly it was his front wheel in question and even if you're not referring to that photo (which would be odd given the context of the thread), there are many, many glowing wheels in that video, front and back. Hubs and tires. And rear clusters. And chains.

So I don't know what you're talking about. A glowing wheel means nothing in that video since it's almost ubiquitous. The hub motor is now a front-wheel motor? I really don't follow.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
red_flanders said:
sniper said:
The evidence may or may not be thin, but 'nobody running with the story' in itself is not an indication of thin evidence.
Nobody runs with anything these days unless it's 100% bullet proof.

While I agree not running with the (lack of) evidence isn't necessarily evidence of anything, please tell me you're kidding regarding the press not running with anything that's not "100% bullet proof". That's flat out comedy.
For cycling journalism, while it may be comedy, unfortunately it's also reality.

A parallel: the Froome 2007 fax being forged with photoshop is rather obvious, and plenty of evidence to back up that claim, but nobody's even come close to running with it.

If there was anything remotely convincing about what they presented, it would be getting picked up.
Jumping to conclusions rather quickly here.
What about: "If there was anything remotely convincing about what they presented, UCI and/or Sagan's lawyers would be all over it like flies on a pile of fresh dogshit ensuring it won't see the light of day."

Forged seems a bit harsh. From what I remember the fax was tidied up a bit, but nothing was materially altered (i.e., all the information was retained). That's pretty much what I'd expect from any magazine editor.

If the issue had any importance in the first place, an original copy would have been supplied.

John Swanson
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

Front wheel?
Red, it's clear to everybody who was involved in the discussion that I was / we were talking about this:

RoglicStradeBiancheMotorClaim-1024x600.jpg
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Forged seems a bit harsh. From what I remember the fax was tidied up a bit, but nothing was materially altered (i.e., all the information was retained). That's pretty much what I'd expect from any magazine editor.

If the issue had any importance in the first place, an original copy would have been supplied.

John Swanson
I don't think you remember well.

I put some of the evidence together. You can pm me if you wanna see it.
In fact I remember offering you this before, but you never pm-ed me.
Which, although your not a journo, does sort of illustrate the wider point i was making about cycling journalism.
I doubt anybody took the effort to contact Stade 2 and ask for the evidence.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
sniper said:
red_flanders said:
sniper said:
Red, as we're on the next page already, you may have missed Tienus' reply (bottom previous page).

Also, for more elaborate discussion of the heat bloom and how strong/weak the Stade 2 evidence is, see this thread :
viewtopic.php?p=1921435#p1921435
Especially pages 3, 4 and 5.
There too, Tienus' posts are imo the most interesting ones.

Well I see you post something about a glowing (front!) tire being "photographic evidence". When in fact many tires from many different riders in that video are glowing. Front, rear, tires, hubs... Gee, could it be brake friction or friction from contact with the ground?

viewtopic.php?p=2053441#p2053441

Just way to quick to leap to conclusions.
When I say "tire glowing" (obviously) I meant "wheel" (totem pro parte), more precisely "rear hub".
My bad, I 'm not well enough acquainted with the english terms for bike parts, but the context should've made that pretty obvious.

Yes, it's evidence, but since when does that mean anything in procycling?

.

It seemed you were referring to this post: viewtopic.php?p=1950578#p1950578

I could be mistaken, but that's the context of the thread.

You said:

sniper said:
props for that tienus, great finds.
Make that awesome finds.

and again, there's the photographic evidence.
primoz' wheel was glowing.
other wheels apparently weren't.

When clearly it was his front wheel in question and even if you're not referring to that photo (which would be odd given the context of the thread), there are many, many glowing wheels in that video, front and back. Hubs and tires. And rear clusters. And chains.

So I don't know what you're talking about. A glowing wheel means nothing in that video since it's almost ubiquitous. The hub motor is now a front-wheel motor? I really don't follow.

I took that to mean the rear hub, which was definitely glowing. Note how the temperature across the hub shell is consistent. Given the conductivity of aluminum (I'm assuming aluminum hub) that suggests the heat isn't caused by a point source or at one end of the hub such as the cassette mechanism or bearings. Possible explanations could be bent/misaligned axle(load on all sets of bearings) or yes, a hub motor. No way of knowing.

However... you have to remember that the hub is being actively air cooled. This suggests that the hub is dissipating more than a few milliwatts. If the source was friction it'd probably be accompanied by some noise. To me it looks consistent with what I imagine a hub motor would look like. But it's definitely not suggestive of one. There are too many other possibilities.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Forged seems a bit harsh. From what I remember the fax was tidied up a bit, but nothing was materially altered (i.e., all the information was retained). That's pretty much what I'd expect from any magazine editor.

If the issue had any importance in the first place, an original copy would have been supplied.

John Swanson
I don't think you remember well.

I put some of the evidence together. You can pm me if you wanna see it.
In fact I remember offering you this before, but you never pm-ed me.
Which, although your not a journo, does sort of illustrate the wider point i was making about cycling journalism.
I doubt anybody took the effort to contact Stade 2 and ask for the evidence.

I don't really do PM. Forgery seems to be well wide of the mark considering nothing was materially altered. Rather it was cleaned up in photoshop just like any magazine editor would demand. What's to investigate?

John Swanson
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
To me it looks consistent with what I imagine a hub motor would look like. But it's definitely not suggestive of one. There are too many other possibilities.
I think you use a weird definition of "suggestive".
It was suggestive of a motor by all definitions of the word "suggestive" I'm familiar with.
Suggestive enough to warrant the Stade 2 docu and several newspaper articles, indeed, about motordoping, and prompting a rather uncomfortable looking Cookson.

In the Primoz thread linked above you'll find some additional indications of him using a motor.

Yes, there are other possibilities. But if it was a mechanical issue, wouldn't we expect more riders with similarly glowing hubs?
Or maybe a kind of continuum, i.e. some hubs not glowing at all, some glowing a small bit, others a bit more, yet others glowing like Roglic's?
Now, what we see here is tons of bikes without any kind of glow in the hub, then Roglic' hub glowing up like a christmas tree.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
...
I don't really do PM. Forgery seems to be well wide of the mark considering nothing was materially altered. Rather it was cleaned up in photoshop just like any magazine editor would demand. What's to investigate?

John Swanson
This is a good illustration here of what I had in mind when I was trying to characterize cycling journalism in that previous post.
No interest in seeing the evidence, then claiming there is no evidence.
I doubt anybody picked up the phone to contact Stade 2 and ask for the evidence.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Cookson is replying "absolutemont" to the question of whether the bike was checked, am I reading that right? Well unless they always check all the bikes that's absolutely a lie. No way he knows for sure which riders are checked.

Yes its Cookson who says absolutement.
I found a video with good English subtitles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=johF_tP1JEY

I looked up the strade Bianchi UCI check at the time and iirc the first 10 or 20 bikes where checked. I'm not surprised Cookson knew this as he was in the middle of a campaign to show the UCI was fighting mechanical doping.
 
Aug 3, 2016
163
4
2,835
I really think the material from this Stade 2 documentary shouldn't be discussed any further. Unless they add something more to it. It's a piece of very poor journalism top to bottom. And the evidence lacks any sort of solid fundament.

There is no such thing as genetic predisposition for natural motor use. Or anything like this that complicates distinction between legit and cheat and that restricts to vague statements only. Having proof (not evidence!) for a motor is as easy as it gets compared to traditional doping. No glow-times, no boosts through altitude training in Himalaya, no microdosing, no shady out-of-competition weight loss. Either there is hardware in a bike at race time that shouldn't be there or there isn't. Full stop.

Here is what a good investigative documentary should have done:
First, collect evidence using their nice method with the thermal camera. Identify teams and riders that look dodgy. (Stade 2 stopped here already and just published what they had. It's awful.)
Secondly, focus on the most suspicious one(s) from your gathered material. Confirm with current thermal images in a particular race and then do the effort to track a bike and catch them off guard. The team might be very well prepared and let it vanish during or after the race. Then get a bit creative, e.g. approach them before a race. Or in a stage race find them in the morning when they prepare the bikes for the next stage. Or the team doesn't really fear the UCI tablet check or anything else ("don't run if nobody is chasing you") and the dodgy material is in plain sight at the finish.
Once you're there, make it very clear to the team representative that you have gathered compelling evidence (and show it) and that you're not just some random weirdo but a journalist from national television. Then politely ask whether they would show you right now what's inside this rear hub. Of course they don't have to, but make sure that they understand what a golden opportunity this would be to instantly take all the heat off this bike (no pun intended). Or, the other way round, what the crystal-clear implication of their secrecy about the rear hub together with your evidence would be. You'd have them in a strong (but fair) double bind.

This way you might reveal a motor (direct proof) because either you happend to blindside somebody from the team who didn't know there was a motor in this bike and played along (very unlikely) or they refused to comply but you called an UCI official with the authority to check the bike.
Or you document how they try hard to escape and not show you anything (and since you don't give them a week's time in advance to prepare polished statements, it will not be pretty..). Or you document how an UCI official tries equally hard to not find anything. Both cases wouldn't be direct proof but make your evidence much much stronger.
Or there is indeed no motor and you gave the team and the rider a very fair chance to demonstrate their innocence. And maybe you could even go on and find out that the increased temperature in this particular bike is due to a slightly misaligned XY or whatever.

Whatever the outcome would be, it would be tangible. Not just implicit accusations (not mentioning a name, but a race and a position.. classy) based on very ambiguous evidence only. It's simply not good enough. They wanted to get their spicy headlines without putting in too much effort. On national television I find it outrageous.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
ScienceIsCool said:
...
I don't really do PM. Forgery seems to be well wide of the mark considering nothing was materially altered. Rather it was cleaned up in photoshop just like any magazine editor would demand. What's to investigate?

John Swanson
This is a good illustration here of what I had in mind when I was trying to characterize cycling journalism in that previous post.
No interest in seeing the evidence, then claiming there is no evidence.
I doubt anybody picked up the phone to contact Stade 2 and ask for the evidence.

You have no idea whether any journalists cycling or not have investigated Stade 2 - Not everything fits into the format of news or can make an article in a newspaper - You need more than a glowing rear hub to definitively write an article.
 
Re:

Tienus said:
The mechanic talks about the peloton split in 3 groups with the team car 2 minutes behind. I did read several race reports and did not see a big split mentioned anywhere.
[E3 '14]: If you insist on your position that you do not accept that after a crash on narrow belgian roads, there will be groups of riders on the road and team cars stuck behind, then I can't be of any help to you. I even found a report which mentioned that second group trailed bunch by 20 seconds but you will probably again find some argument in favour of your theories. Still, have a look at this video (from a team car!) how it looked like after that crash: https://youtu.be/_6rFEhAjdXE?t=148 and give it one more thought please...
Tienus said:
Fortunately in the Paris Roubaix 2014 I found 3 bike changes for no apparent reason from Sagan. This time both Sagan and Marangoni are lying about it.
You have posted Marangoni blog before:
http://www.thepelotonbrief.com/alan-marangoni-paris-roubaix/
This is an interview with Sagan:
http://www.ad.nl/wielrennen/sagan-nu-genieten-van-een-poosje-verlof~ad32cb40/
"Just before the famous passage to the Wallers-Arenberg forest I had been dropped to make a bike change because my gear machine was broken. Then I had to deal with a flat tire, so I had to sit on the bike of my team-mate Alan Marangoni. I would lose too much time with another wheel change. Twenty kilometers further on I was able to again take my own bike. "
Here is the race video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxt_odjJjs&t=1848s
21:35 Sagan is at the front of the peloton
21:45 crash peloton wich apparantly damages sagan's derailleur. There seem to be no Cannondale riders involved though. Marangoni's blog story does not match the situation.
22:56 Sagan is at the back of the peloton probably to swap bikes but there is a split due to the crash and the car is too far.
25:05 Sagan is waving for the team car who is almost at the front and Sagan swaps bikes. Why is his team mate holding a wheel? I would not be surpised if he was also swapping bikes.

Although it is possible it does not look like Sagan used Marangoni's bike at any stage. Marangoni describes in his blog where this should have happened.

1:18:00 Sagan has another swap with a bike from the team car
1:18:41 Sagan bike has his nr 101
1:52:55 Sagan has another swap with a bike from the team car
1:59:22 Sagan puts on the turbo
2:05:55 Sagan bike has his nr 101

So 3 bike changes with the team car as you can see. You are free to belief team Cannondale but I think they are lying.
[P-R '14]: Your post confirms that Sagan and Marangoni give mutually matching desription of events. So let's have a look at your claims and how false they are:

1) Change after the crash: You say video does not match Marangoni's blog. Seriously? This is what he wrote: Passing through a narrow stretch, there is the first mass fall of the day. Just behind me I hear the clash of carbon and aluminium crashing to the ground. I look back right away to see if Peter was involved. Fortunately, he’s still up and running, on the back wheel of King. I get myself untangled and wait for them, then I help them catch up. No sooner do I think that this time we got off easy than I hear Peter’s unmistakable voice on the radio: “Stefano (Zanatta, ed. note), I gotta change bikes.” His gear change is nearly destroyed and his chain comes off at each turn of the pedal. We wait for the team car to come, stop, and change bikes. The group is moving fast and it takes us a little while to catch back up.

You say Sagan was at the front of the peloton before the crash, but you are wrong - he was not among Cannondale riders up front. You can see here he is almost at the back in front of three teammates - you should recognise the country symbol on his back:
541ac39786.png

You also say that no Cannondale riders were involved. But you can see here three Cannondale riders clearly chasing back after the crash (and one was in the second group):
542f42b5fe.png

Plus the video matches the rest of Marangoni's description. So?

2) Then as regards the second change: we see Sagan back on his bike after the change, so presumably he should have been on Marangoni's bike for 20 kms before that. Marangoni's blog described this as follows: We enter the Hornaing sector and a French rider from Europcar goes down in front of me, taking with him Longo Borghini, who gets right back up. I’m still in the saddle, and I’m starting to think that somebody up there is rooting for me today. I’ve been able to avoid all the falls and had no incidents myself, which I find hardly believable. And that’s when the unexpected happens. Peter punctures right in the middle of the cobblestone, while the guys up front are forcing the pace. I stop, and without a moment’s hesitation give him my bike.

When you watch the video at 50:00, which is approximately 20 kms before Sagan changed back to his bike, guess what you see: Europcar rider down on the cobbles, some Cannondales swerving around. So the story matches the video, we just do not see the moment Sagan changed bike with Marangoni some time after that crash.

3) Finallly, regarding alleged third bike change at 1:52:55 - this one probably happened only in your fantasy. Yes, Sagan goes back to the car, but if he wanted to change bike, don't you think Bodnar would wait for him to pace him back, rather than riding at the front? Plus at 1:53:13 you can see in the background Sagan riding alongside the car, and at 1:53:25 Sagan already riding back to the group, reaching to his back pocket:
54f49a73b9.png

So sorry, but there was no bike change at this time.

I mean, maybe he really had motor in his bike, but let's not create new reality just to get the picture which suits our agenda and then say others tell lies, shall we.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Lol. Marangoni, guy suspected of being part of the plot, says all bike changes were above board.
Glad we got that settled.

And enough of the pedantry already peter. No need to turn this into a pissing contest.
 
Re:

sniper said:
Lol. Marangoni, guy suspected of being part of the plot, says all bike changes were above board.
Glad we got that settled.

And enough of the pedantry already peter. No need to turn this into a pissing contest.
Why I am not surprised that you are not happy with my post?