Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

[markene2]

Wait what. Are there still people that think sky is clean here??

 

[EnacheV]

Wait what. Are there still people that think sky is clean here??

sorry if your favorites are dopers this doesn't mean the best are to. This is a big problem, when people throw **** at winners because they cheer for dopers.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

sorry if your favorites are dopers this doesn't mean the best are to. This is a big problem, when people throw **** at winners because they cheer for dopers.

Belive you me, Kash does not dope anymore

 

[LaFlorecita]

sorry if your favorites are dopers this doesn't mean the best are to. This is a big problem, when people throw **** at winners because they cheer for dopers.

No, skybots like you are a big problem

 

[Arrowfarm]

Wait what. Are there still people that think sky is clean here??

Hardly...
Oh, wait...
Do trolls and skybots count as people?

Perhaps a few of the staff are clean, but their GT captains and main domestiques... Come on. Noone truly believes that, do they?

 

[sniper]

Hardly...
Oh, wait...
Do trolls and skybots count as people?

Perhaps a few of the staff are clean, but their GT captains and main domestiques... Come on. Noone truly believes that, do they?

The will to believe is strong my friend.

We,ve come to the point where the fact that froome doesnt bully is used as an argument that he,s clean.

 

[EnacheV]

We,ve come to the point where the fact that froome doesnt bully is used as an argument that he,s clean.

That's because the arguments for him doping are even weaker than that.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

If it's not physical evidence what it is ? Fantasy evidence? I think there is no evidence but i will give you a chance to show me some EVIDENCE.

Like riders lying in interviews?

 

[sniper]

That's because the arguments for him doping are even weaker than that.

Being a troll, its your task to pretend there is no evidence.

And even if there really were no evidence (lets ignore lienders etc.), the recent history of cycling compels us to be skeptic merely on the basis of sky,s results. But again, its your task to ignore that history. So keep up the good work.

 

[Arrowfarm]

That's because the arguments for him doping are even weaker than that.

So you just dismiss the facts that he races faster than known dopers, both uphill and on TTs, and that he transformed from a mediocre rider to the Best GT rider virtually overnight?

I, personally, can neither dismiss nor explain those things.

I dont see the gun, but I see and smell the smoke.

 

[del1962]

So you just dismiss the facts that he races faster than known dopers, both uphill and on TTs, and that he transformed from a mediocre rider to the Best GT rider virtually overnight?

I, personally, can neither dismiss nor explain those things.

I dont see the gun, but I see and smell the smoke.

The problem is that before making an accusation, some of us want to see some proper evidence, something of substance, we don't live in a world where you can just go around accusin ppl without evidence, we dont live in a fascist of communist regime

 

[The Hitch]

The problem is that before making an accusation, some of us want to see some proper evidence, something of substance, we don't live in a world where you can just go around accusin ppl without evidence, we dont live in a fascist of communist regime

It would be really funny if this post was made by a guy who has no problem going around calling Cancellara and Horner dopers whenever he feels like.

Oh wait

 

[Benotti69]

The problem is that before making an accusation, some of us want to see some proper evidence, something of substance, we don't live in a world where you can just go around accusin ppl without evidence, we dont live in a fascist of communist regime

You expected McQuaid to provide evidence? Why?

The same arguments were used to defend Armstrong, "cant go around accusing people without evidence". But there is evidence, Donkeys to racehorses, Leinders, love for Lance, hatred for Landis, Bilharzia lies, beating known dopers speeds up climbs, Sky train in 2012, etc etc.......

The clinic is not a fascist regime, it is a forum. Neither is it a court of law and there is no need to produce 'evidence', but we can join the dots here and come to opinions.

It is obvious that the threads about Sky bother the team and their fans as it did Armstrong and his minions.

 

[the sceptic]

the "evidence" stuff is such a weak and overused trolling attempt

 

[del1962]

You expected McQuaid to provide evidence? Why?

The same arguments were used to defend Armstrong, "cant go around accusing people without evidence". But there is evidence, Donkeys to racehorses, Leinders, love for Lance, hatred for Landis, Bilharzia lies, beating known dopers speeds up climbs, Sky train in 2012, etc etc.......

The clinic is not a fascist regime, it is a forum. Neither is it a court of law and there is no need to produce 'evidence', but we can join the dots here and come to opinions.

It is obvious that the threads about Sky bother the team and their fans as it did Armstrong and his minions.

Why drag Armstrong in, there was evidence againt him, you would do better not to bring it up as it kinda makes you look a bit dumb imho

Thread doesn't bother me as it is just groundless accusations, but is always a good laugh to see what the dopeborgs come up with next

 

[del1962]

the "evidence" stuff is such a weak and overused trolling attempt

Dopeborg, are you accusing me of trolling?

 

[the sceptic]

Dopeborg, are you accusing me of trolling?

Ball, not man del.

I feel like responding to this post will lead to an infraction so I will refrain.

You need to learn the difference between a criminal trial and a forum on the internet.

I do find it funny that you think having freedom of speech equals living under a fascist regime though. Do you mind expanding a bit on that?

 

[del1962]

Ball, not man del.

I feel like responding to this post will lead to an infraction so I will refrain.

You need to learn the difference between a criminal trial and a forum on the internet.

I do find it funny that you think having freedom of speech equals living under a fascist regime though. Do you mind expanding a bit on that?

Accusing without evidence is what the afformentioned regimes where well versed in (communist aswell) , reading some Orwell would be a good starting place for you, obviously you have the right o make such accusations as long as you don't mind if others can ridicule them.

 

[Arrowfarm]

Accusing without evidence is what the afformentioned regimes where well versed in (communist aswell) , reading some Orwell would be a good starting place for you, obviously you have the right o make such accusations as long as you don't mind if others can ridicule them.

Circumstantial evidence is still, as the name states, evidence. There's plenty of circumstances that point towards froome being a doper.

Like I wrote... There's no gun, but there's enough smoke to see and smell.

 

[the sceptic]

Accusing without evidence is what the afformentioned regimes where well versed in (communist aswell) , reading some Orwell would be a good starting place for you, obviously you have the right o make such accusations as long as you don't mind if others can ridicule them.

Del. Your analogy falls apart if you think about it a bit more.

The clinic has no power to sanction riders. No matter how many accusations gets made here, no rider is going to get thrown into jail for 50 years.

Del, if you allow me. Let me post how wikipedia defines your favourite word "evidence" (with link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfill the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistomology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.

Let me remind you again. The clinic is no legal system.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Accusing without evidence is what the afformentioned regimes where well versed in (communist aswell) , reading some Orwell would be a good starting place for you, obviously you have the right o make such accusations as long as you don't mind if others can ridicule them.

The only one acting - imho -facist here are people who oppose freedom of speech, so, please.

Imho there is enough evidence to suggest Sky are doping, there you have it. Semantic BS.

 

[The Hitch]

as long as you don't mind if others can ridicule them.

Lol when have you ever come close to ridiculing someone elses argument?

You just bleat "no evidence" like a sheep, all while accusing Cancellara and Horner of doping even though you have absolutely no courtroom evidence to prove that either

But "no evidence" isn't really ridiculing an argument is it?

Nice of you to mention Orwell though. I see some real parrallels between you Parker Enache and a group of characters in one of his books.

The way "Slow ascents good, fasts ascents bad" turned to "Slow ascents good, fast ascents better" the moment that someone else told you to do so.

Here is how that group is described on the wikipedia page of Animal Farm.

The Sheep – They show limited understanding of the situations but nonetheless blindly support Napoleon's ideals.

Mindbowing how accurately that applies to this case.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Lol when have you ever come close to ridiculing someone elses argument?

You just bleat "no evidence" like a sheep, all while accusing Cancellara and Horner of doping even though you have absolutely no courtroom evidence to prove that either

But "no evidence" isn't really ridiculing an argument is it?

Nice of you to mention Orwell though. I see some real parrallels between you Parker Enache and a group of characters in one of his books.

The way "Slow ascents good, fasts ascents bad" turned to "Slow ascents good, fast ascents better" the moment that someone else told you to do so.

Here is how that group is described on the wikipedia page of Animal Farm.



Mindbowing how accurately that applies to this case.

Watch out now Snowball, or else Napoleon is comming for you

 

[del1962]

Circumstantial evidence is still, as the name states, evidence. There's plenty of circumstances that point towards froome being a doper.

Like I wrote... There's no gun, but there's enough smoke to see and smell.

What ppl here call circumstantial evidence, isn't really even what is classed as circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence is like the stuff against say Michael Rogers (visiting Ferrari when he should know he shouldn't go near him)

 

[thehog]

What ppl here call circumstantial evidence, isn't really even what is classed as circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence is like the stuff against say Michael Rogers (visiting Ferrari when he should know he shouldn't go near him)

Stuff like, people acussin, stuff like, circumstantial, evidence and stuff.

Perhaps read up, learn a little about what it is you're trying to say then you may not be laughed at.

Now what is it are you trying to say?