Shaun Stephens to Sky

[martinvickers]

no one ever tests positive in triathlon. sport is probably clean

Well, apart from some world champs and an olympic champ, obviously

Brigette McMahon

Tim Don

Michael Weiss

Dmitri Gaag

Nina Kraft - OK she only won Ironman Silver, my bad

 

[sniper]

No, Mr. Prejudice. I need facts on one Mr. Shaun Stephens. When you go around accusing someone of something, you should be able to back it up. And let me give you a hint, it should be better than "he is in sports, ergo he condones or assists PED-abuse".

And as side note. The only time I could get caught in a cave or under a rock, it would be to find nutters like yourself.

you're smarter than that, GJB, I know you are.
i'm feeling good today, so I'll spell it out, just for you:
fact 1: PEDs are pervasive in prosport including triathlon
fact 2: coaches most of the time know what their athletes are on
fact 3: Stephens is a very successful triathlon coach

now, if you have evidence that Shaun has actively tried to keep his athletes from using PEDs, post it.
until then the most plausible inference from facts 1-3 is that Shaun endulges doping.

EDIT: I love the German translation of common sense: gesundes Menschenverstand

 

[RownhamHill]

I think a few posters seem to have forgotten something important when it comes to discussing Sky, but luckily I'm happy to remind you all:

It is ludicrous to demand proof or evidence of doping.

Carry on as you are.

 

[GJB123]

you're smarter than that, GJB, I know you are.
i'm feeling good today, so I'll spell it out, just for you:
fact 1: PEDs are pervasive in prosport including triathlon
fact 2: coaches most of the time know what their athletes are on
fact 3: Stephens is a very successful triathlon coach

now, if you have evidence that Shaun has actively tried to keep his athletes from using PEDs, post it.
until then the most plausible inference from facts 1-3 is that Shaun endulges doping.

Fact 1 and fact 3 are genuine facts. Fact 2 is an assumption on your part. From combining fact 1 and fact 3, we do not automatically get fact 4: "Shaun Stephens endulges doping." We do get your opinion/prejudice: "Shaun Stephens endulges doping." Did you spot the difference or was that difficult with your blinders still on?

 

[lean mean &green]

Fact 1 and fact 3 are genuine facts. Fact 2 is an assumption on your part. From combining fact 1 and fact 3, we do not automatically get fact 4: "Shaun Stephens endulges doping." We do get your opinion/prejudice: "Shaun Stephens endulges doping." Did you spot the difference or was that difficult with your blinders still on?

what he'd written isn't exactly a non-sequitor as you suggest. he's merely establishing some data points from which we can draw our own conclusions.

the both of you could use a refresher course in formal logic.

tho his conclusions are drawn somewhat rashly based upon what i agree are flimsy data points, at least they're based upon something. your position is essentially, "just because". you "value" giving folks the benefit of the doubt which is an even more biased approach.

 

[sniper]

Fact 1 and fact 3 are genuine facts. Fact 2 is an assumption on your part. From combining fact 1 and fact 3, we do not automatically get fact 4: "Shaun Stephens endulges doping." We do get your opinion/prejudice: "Shaun Stephens endulges doping." Did you spot the difference or was that difficult with your blinders still on?

i said it's an assumption, i.e. common sense inferred from facts. hard to grasp, ey? i know you're smarter, GJB, i just feel it.
Here's the link again to the Wikipedia site on common sense. Just take your time and read it through. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense. See it as a personal investment.
Also take some time to check a dictionary and find the difference between assumption and fact. you'll see that the former doesn't equal the latter, but rather is based on viz. inferred from, the latter.

 

[sniper]

what he'd written isn't exactly a non-sequitor as you suggest. he's merely establishing some data points from which we can draw our own conclusions.

thanks!
see, GJB, it wasn't that hard to understand

 

[sniper]

...
tho his conclusions are drawn somewhat rashly based upon what i agree are flimsy data points, at least they're based upon something. your position is essentially, "just because". you "value" giving folks the benefit of the doubt which is an even more biased approach.

lovely!

I recognize common sense when I see it.

 

[sublimit]

I think a few posters seem to have forgotten something important when it comes to discussing Sky, but luckily I'm happy to remind you all:

It is ludicrous to demand proof or evidence of doping.

Carry on as you are.

I think its become a battle to who can become the most condescending poster.. A bit unfortunate to say the least.

I want less of that and more background checks on Shaun because I'm so concerned lol

 

[oldcrank]

Sky just need a running coach and they should be set.

Maybe they could try and get Dr. Peters back from UK Athletics.
It seems you didn't know about that even though it happened
a month ago. Too busy trying to figure out why Sky didn't want
Kimmage embedded with them in the 2012 Tour until after the
8th stage of the 2010 Tour I guess.

Can't wait to see how the Tin Hats spin the fact that Peters left for
UK Athletics. It should be very illuminating. Very illuminating, indeed.
Maybe it will require it's own thread.

 

[sniper]

some datapoints on Stephens' 'boys', amongst whom we find the latest under 23 world champion Aaron Royle:

Royle (...)pushed the go button to clear out over the final stages to beat Spain’s Fernando Alarza and Great Britain’s Thomas Bishop.

It was an encouraging day all round for the next generation of Australia’s emerging men with Australian Head Coach Shaun Stephens belief in his boys coming to fruition.

“We put a lot of planning into this race. A lot of race preparation and simulation with the boys. Jamie mapped out a course around the hills of West Dapto and we also worked in the NSWIS altitude training assimilation tent.

http://www.trizone.com.au/20121022/...3-itu-world-title-and-starts-his-road-to-rio/

 

[sniper]

Shaun's pupil, Emma Moffet (two-time ITU World Champion), on anti-doping:

"I think it's important for everyone, I don't see why poisoning your body for a better performance is a better outcome, I think you have to think about your body when you are competing now and in the future and I don't think drugs are good for either of those things, I think just being yourself, being healthy and putting in the hard training to get the results is the best outcome," Moffatt said.

She sure thinks alot.

http://www.xtri.com/features/detail/284-itemId.511712768.html

 

[hrotha]

So he beat an amateur Spaniard. That's a data point.

Hmm.

That's pretty offensive.

 

[sniper]

I've now looked at Shaun's profile abit closer, and couldn't find anything dodgier than one of his pupils beating a Spaniard .
He did coach a lot of succesful triathletes and was in the game during the haydays of EPO, but I can't find any real dots to connect.

I'm not sure about triathlon.
Judging from how easily Lance was able to win a few triathlons, the sport seems to be somewhat cleaner than, say, cycling, where such an introduction into the sport at that age would have been impossible.

I guess the most dodgy aspect about Shaun is that Brailsford wants him.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Maybe they could try and get Dr. Peters back from UK Athletics.
It seems you didn't know about that even though it happened
a month ago. Too busy trying to figure out why Sky didn't want
Kimmage embedded with them in the 2012 Tour until after the
8th stage of the 2010 Tour I guess.

Can't wait to see how the Tin Hats spin the fact that Peters left for
UK Athletics. It should be very illuminating. Very illuminating, indeed.
Maybe it will require it's own thread.

Those "tinhats" who used to rattle on and on about some sort of "conspiracy" between Armstrong and UCI?

 

[Froome19]

I've now looked at Shaun's profile abit closer, and couldn't find anything dodgier than one of his pupils beating a Spaniard .
He did coach a lot of succesful triathletes and was in the game during the haydays of EPO, but I can't find any real dots to connect.

I'm not sure about triathlon.
Judging from how easily Lance was able to win a few triathlons, the sport seems to be somewhat cleaner than, say, cycling, where such an introduction into the sport at that age would have been impossible.

I guess the most dodgy aspect about Shaun is that Brailsford wants him.

That is as much an admittance that you believe someone related to Sky is clean as we are ever going to get.

 

[hrotha]

I've now looked at Shaun's profile abit closer, and couldn't find anything dodgier than one of his pupils beating a Spaniard .

You won't fix that with a smiley.

 

[sniper]

That is as much an admittance that you believe someone related to Sky is clean as we are ever going to get.

just saying there are no real dodgy data points to be found on Shaun.
There is no doubt in my mind that this guy endulges whatever program he's confronted with as soon as his job at Sky starts. However, at first sight, it doesn't seem as if this guy was brought on board to significantly improve said program. He's replacing Yates, not Leinders.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Maybe they could try and get Dr. Peters back from UK Athletics.
It seems you didn't know about that even though it happened
a month ago. Too busy trying to figure out why Sky didn't want
Kimmage embedded with them in the 2012 Tour until after the
8th stage of the 2010 Tour I guess.

Can't wait to see how the Tin Hats spin the fact that Peters left for
UK Athletics. It should be very illuminating. Very illuminating, indeed.
Maybe it will require it's own thread.

good post

...

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Those "tinhats" who used to rattle on and on about some sort of "conspiracy" between Armstrong and UCI?

armstrong everybody agreed. conspiracy with uci we still need prove of that.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

just saying there are no real dodgy data points to be found on Shaun.
There is no doubt in my mind that this guy endulges whatever program he's confronted with as soon as his job at Sky starts. However, at first sight, it doesn't seem as if this guy was brought on board to significantly improve said program. He's replacing Yates, not Leinders.

you checked if he's a good car driver then?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Daily mail reading fanboys.. Thats a new one.

The kind of people that read that worthless, garbage paper would hate all cycling activities, so I'm not sure where you are coming from there.

They tend to put their hatred of cycling to one side when Brits are doing well

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

They tend to put their hatred of cycling to one side when Brits are doing well

sounds to me like your average brit

 

[JimmyFingers]

sounds to me like your average brit

Indeed an average human when their country is doing well at any sport

 

[GJB123]

what he'd written isn't exactly a non-sequitor as you suggest. he's merely establishing some data points from which we can draw our own conclusions.

the both of you could use a refresher course in formal logic.

tho his conclusions are drawn somewhat rashly based upon what i agree are flimsy data points, at least they're based upon something. your position is essentially, "just because". you "value" giving folks the benefit of the doubt which is an even more biased approach.

And he does draw his conclusies and all I am saying is that his set of data points are so flimsy they don't support his conclusions. I am just trying to show the fallacy in his reasoning. Nothing more, nothing less.

I, on the other hand, don't draw any conclusions regarding Shaun Stephens. I can't, because I actually don't know the guy. I am indeed suggesting giving him the benefit of the doubt but I am in no way suggesting that is based on any facts, since I have none. In short I don't have an opinion on him and I don't think Mr. Prejudice can't defend the opinion he has given.