Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Justinr]

Bobbins could have been referring to BS.

Apart from the fact that BS hasn't just won a major event has he? And it can't be a track rider since they haven't won anything lately

 

[martinvickers]

Except Wiggins didn't keep quiet. He did the opposite- spoke up, loudly, in defense of the person you are offering reasons why he wouldn't speak up either way on.

So try again.

Strawman. Again.

Quelle surprise!

 

[martinvickers]

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks it extremely doubtful that UKAD follow up on every lead?

I'm no crusader, you guys need to realise that the odds are staked in favour of the cheats.

Since when did you need to be a crusader to tip off UKAD anonymously. And don't claim you have, because you've already confirmed you haven't, and won't.

Why don't you contact Kimmage. He's on twitter, you know. he'd love a good story.

And why not out the rider here? We're all ears.

How many pages is it now you've refused?

"I know something you don't!!"

Hmmm.

 

[martinvickers]

Can't work out this quote thing but no, an athlete winning a major event isn't a major athlete. They are an athlete.

The rest of your reply doesn't rurally help or add any value to these discussions. Too many assumptions and you seem to be getting far too emotionally involved. If you want to continue this just DM me rather than take this thread off topic even more.

You asked a question. I answered it. nothing more, nothing less.

And how exactly is outing this dirty rider off topic?

 

[martinvickers]

Apart from the fact that BS hasn't just won a major event has he? And it can't be a track rider since they haven't won anything lately

A World Tour stage - one he was little expected to win, and the nature of which raised excitable commentary on this forum - probably counts as a major event.

Of course, we can't know. It could, theoretically be IS. or possibly PK, at a stretch on what a major event is. But on this issue at least, sniper has made at least a good educated guess.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Still seen it many times...guy names someone...other person says what's your source.
Person replies I can't name my source.
Person then says well I call BS.


And again I know Bobbins and have spoken to him...he's no liar. And knows more than almost anyone else on here regarding BC.

The real travesty is the Pulitzer committee overlooking Bobbins for those craven Murdoch stooges at The Guardian.

 

[the sceptic]

Strawman. Again.

Quelle surprise!

600+ posts defending sky in this thread

0 posts defending Horner in the Horner thread

quelle surprise.

 

[Justinr]

The real travesty is the Pulitzer committee overlooking Bobbins for those craven Murdoch stooges at The Guardian.

Im not sure there would be many Murdoch stooges at The Grauniad ...

 

[martinvickers]

600+ posts defending sky in this thread

0 posts defending Horner in the Horner thread

quelle surprise.

Ball not man, Sceptic.

I've barely read the Horner thread; why would i have posted there?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Im not sure there would be many Murdoch stooges at The Grauniad ...

In that case, it's high time they put in a shift exposing this doping scandal in the belly of the beast, rather than flying the flag for Rupes rubes.

By the way, heard the one about Brailsford getting closer to Rupert? He got a column in the son.

 

[The Hitch]

But the jump from there to he's a doper himself is not born of logic, but emnity. He VERY WELL MAY BE A DOPER. Absolutely But that interview isn't the proof of that. Not really even close. That's the point.

That's because you always operate on a binary scale where anything that isnt conclusive proof of doping, is irrelevant.

Since nothing but a positive test could ever count as proof, it conveniently allows you to dismiss every single argument against sky as irrelevant.

For most people however when they approach a question such as - is rider "a" doping, there is a bigger variation of possible conclusions. It's not just -"yes they are doping", vs- "I can't tell either way- both are as possible as eachother". There's also -"I kind of doubt it", or "I'm not sure, but it's very worrying" or "I consider that to be very unlikely"

So if we take the question- what are the chances that a rider who is fighting a field of dopers clean would speak out in favour of someone he knows to be doping abd cheating him

The logical answer to this is - very small. So for the sake of argument to give it a precise number - (and I'm being very generous to Wiggins here) 20% chance.

But for you the default answer to anything that isn't conclusive proof is 50%. If it's not 0 or 100, it's always 50 for you. That's why you dismiss Wiggins defense of Armstrong as irrelevant, whereas the rest of us view it as something that brings significant doubts

Because the chances that someone who has always looked out only for number 1 would suddenly behave in a manner so enormously contrary to their own interests, are absolutely not 50%. So we can't give a -"maybe, maybe not" answer to something so improbable.

If we take another question- what are the chances that a rider capable of having one of the greatest seasons in the history of the sport, was totally incapable of finishing in the top100 of gts until he turned 29.

Most people, won't give anything near 50% for this. I think few would even give it double figures. It's pretty much unprecedented in the history of sport. Let's say 5% for this.

One final question what are the chances the only 2 riders in the history of cycling capable of matching times of epo fuelled riders clean, just happen to be 2 totally unfancied brits who found out their hidden talents in the 2012 Olympic cycle.

Again, for most people the answer will not be anywhere near 50%. It is a another issue that brings scepticism to team sky, since it requires nothing short or a miraculous coincidence for sky to be clean.

if you add the questions up for us the probabilities on every question point directly to Wiggins and froome doping, since we see these things as more complex than - "yes", "no" or "neither" answers. So do most people that's why froomes speeds at the 13 tour provoked such a controversy. Doing ventoux in a time similar to Armstrong's is considered less likely to be capable of a clean rider. Doing it 10 minutes slower more so. The rider who does it in Armstrong's time and the one who does it slower are to us, ignoring other variables for the minute, not both 50% likely to be clean.

Adding up the probabilities of these questions and any others gives a very very small and bleak probability that sky would achieve all this and behave that way while being clean.

For you however since the default probability for every single question is -50%, adding them all up, brings about a total sky clean proability of, surprise surprise -50%, which is where iirc you have openly claimed on numerous occasions, to stand.

That's why for you, none of our arguments against sky can ever mean much. The question -are sky clean will ALWAYS bring for you a "I don't have a clue either way" "maybe they are maybe they aren't" answer. Only a positive test could possibly break that.

For us, a -"is a rider doping" question, can go beyond-"have they tested positive".

 

[Justinr]

By the way, heard the one about Brailsford getting closer to Rupert? He got a column in the son.

Ok you need to explain that one to me ...

 

[sniper]

....

irresistible post.

 

[martinvickers]

That's because you always operate on a binary scale where anything that isnt conclusive proof of doping, is irrelevant.

Bullsh!t. I work on the basis of reason, and cause and effect.

Since nothing but a positive test could ever count as proof, it conveniently allows you to dismiss every single argument against sky as irrelevant.

Again, Bullsh!t. Quite happy to accept witness testimony or incriminating documents, for example.

For most people however when they approach a question such as - is rider "a" doping, there is a bigger variation of possible conclusions. It's not just -"yes they are doping", vs- "I can't tell either way- both are as possible as eachother". There's also -"I kind of doubt it", or "I'm not sure, but it's very worrying" or "I consider that to be very unlikely"

All of those are variations of "i don't know", no more, no less. If people actually took those attitudes were appropriate, rather than exclaiming with cast iron certainty, the bullsh!t metre in this place wouldn't be taking so much use.

So if we take the question- what are the chances that a rider who is fighting a field of dopers clean would speak out in favour of someone he knows to be doping abd cheating him

I note the assumption is basically false. Whatever else Wiggins might have thought, suspected, or feared, He did not KNOW he was being cheated in 2009. WE also have the cannard, stated as fact, that somehow the 2009 field was one of the worst ever - basically, for no other reason I can see but one man's return.

The logical answer to this is - very small. So for the sake of argument to give it a precise number - (and I'm being very generous to Wiggins here) 20% chance.

Please don't abuse actual mathematics with this hocus pocus; it's banal.

But for you the default answer to anything that isn't conclusive proof is 50%. If it's not 0 or 100, it's always 50 for you. That's why you dismiss Wiggins defense of Armstrong as irrelevant, whereas the rest of us view it as something that brings significant doubts

Bullsh!t. I do NOT always view it as 50/50. You clearly don't understand my view. that;s not my problem .It's yours.

Because the chances that someone who has always looked out only for number 1 would suddenly behave in a manner so enormously contrary to their own interests, are absolutely not 50%. So we can't give a -"maybe, maybe not" answer to something so improbable.

i'm sorry, but this makes f**k all sense to me, could you translate, please.

If we take another question- what are the chances that a rider capable of having one of the greatest seasons in the history of the sport, was totally incapable of finishing in the top100 of gts until he turned 29.

Most people, won't give anything near 50% for this. I think few would even give it double figures. It's pretty much unprecedented in the history of sport. Let's say 5% for this.

There you go with your fun fairy numbers again. How many career trackies - and that is what Wiggins was - since, say, the 70's have actually swapped onto the road permanantly? A handful of australians. Anyone else?

One final question what are the chances the only 2 riders in the history of cycling capable of matching times of epo fuelled riders clean, just happen to be 2 totally unfancied brits who found out their hidden talents in the 2012 Olympic cycle.

What EPO times did Wiggins match?

 

[Netserk]

Ah yeah, the skybot response when confronted with evidence of doping: It's not proof!

 

[martinvickers]

irresistible post.

Circular backslaps. Meaningless fanboisim.

 

[martinvickers]

Ah yeah, the skybot response when confronted with evidence of doping: It's not proof!

Oh, hello you. Wondering where you'd got to. Wonderful contribution! Just what we needed.

 

[Netserk]

Oh, hello you. Wondering where you'd got to. Wonderful contribution! Just what we needed.

 

[martinvickers]

Honestly, Wildean stuff there, Netserk. Wildean. Not at all trolling. nope, no sir.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Ok you need to explain that one to me ...

I've butchered a Class A Iain Banks joke about a journalist making advances to Lachlan Murdoch: getting a column (cylindrical appendage) in the son (pun on soaraway Sun).

 

[sniper]

Circular backslaps.

i like that expression.
but hitch is flat out right.
if we take the wiggins/froome tandem on a probablitity scale, the chances of them being clean are just rather slim, you'd have to agree. It's not a 50-50 thing. "I don't know" is an option only if you ignore the history of the sport.

p.s. wrt bobbins.
I don't know his posting history very well, but I don't have any reason to assume he was doing a Hog.
On a probablitiy scale, I'd say 70-30 in favor of Bobbins.
In any case it is not hard to understand his reluctance to go on the record here naming names. Internet anonymity doesn't mean much and as Digger said, the next step will be people demanding him to backup his claims with more hard proof, etc.

 

[martinvickers]

I've butchered a Class A Iain Banks joke about a journalist making advances to Lachlan Murdoch: getting a column (cylindrical appendage) in the son (pun on soaraway Sun).

You have now put a picture in my head that is deeply unpleasant. you are a bad person.

 

[martinvickers]

i like that expression.
but hitch is flat out right.
if we take the wiggins/froome tandem on a probablitity scale, the chances of them being clean are just rather slim, you'd have to agree. It's not a 50-50 thing. "I don't know" is an option only if you ignore the history of the sport.

p.s. wrt bobbins.
I don't know his posting history very well, but I don't have any reason to assume he was doing a Hog.
On a probablitiy scale, I'd say 70-30 in favor of Bobbins.
In any case it is not hard to understand his reluctance to go on the record here naming names. Internet anonymity doesn't mean much and as Digger said, the next step will be people demanding him to backup his claims with more hard proof, etc.

More fairy fun numbers, I'm afraid. That translates, in real world talk to - I choose to believe him, but I can't verify it. Which is of course fine, but that's really, only a function of your beliefs, not of the reality.

And since he's anonymous, how's he going on the record?

What you seem to have lost sight of is a poster hiding a possibly dirty rider, a corrupt fed - and it's been treated as a good thing - frankly for no other reason because it has a pleasant smearing quality against a group you don't appear to like, and can't be disproved for lack of anything to actually disprove.

As I said, that's not anti-doping, it's tittilation. Don't expect me to respect that...

 

[Ventoux Boar]

You have now put a picture in my head that is deeply unpleasant. you are a bad person.

It's changed how I look at columnists, for sure.

 

[gooner]

i like that expression.
but hitch is flat out right.
if we take the wiggins/froome tandem on a probablitity scale, the chances of them being clean are just rather slim, you'd have to agree. It's not a 50-50 thing. "I don't know" is an option only if you ignore the history of the sport.

p.s. wrt bobbins.
I don't know his posting history very well, but I don't have any reason to assume he was doing a Hog.
On a probablitiy scale, I'd say 70-30 in favor of Bobbins.
In any case it is not hard to understand his reluctance to go on the record here naming names. Internet anonymity doesn't mean much and as Digger said, the next step will be people demanding him to backup his claims with more hard proof, etc.

I don't know if he's lying or telling the truth but I'm not going to take this as gospel and sniper, I can't understand how you give this a 70% approval just like that.

I do think he can be a bit more clear cut in what he said. At least give us the period in question with regards to Ellingworth, was it with Sky? was it before Sky? I'm genuinely interested to know more on this but just saying you know something doesn't quite cut it when taking it on board.

If you want to know what ITK's are, as MartinV has mentioned, they'll be out in force for the transfer season in the summer and you can guess what they'll be up to. I see them all the time and it's listening to thunder back and forth and it's why with Bobbins, this can't be taken seriously at this time.