Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1120 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
martinvickers said:
What YOU don't seem to get is that YOU don't get to define my motives to suit your own biases. I define my own motives. You don't like that? Sucks to be you.
Youve never had any problems defining other peoples motives on this forum before. You did it to me just a week ago.
martinvickers said:
When you put together decent evidence, you're an excellent poster. but when the bile clouds the judgement - as it seems to do with Wiggins from time to time - I have to challenge that, you know?
But when someone else does it to you, suddenly it's wrong?

And red unlike you, when you accuse people of bias, actually offered backup to his accusation. He pointed out that your posts are heavily concentrated in one thread. I also remember last week you referred to one side (the one we think you occupy) as rational and mocked the other as people who just want to shout Brailsfraud.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Netserk said:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

What you seem to miss is that the assertion that Sky riders are doping is supported by evidence.

You however seem not to understand it, or unwilling to, and reading proof instead of evidence.
Where Hitch has put forward 'evidence', we've discussed it thoroughly - only recently another couple of rounds on the infamous Wiggins-Landis interview.

But when he states, simpliciter, that he is 'certain' and that's the end of it, Hitchens' razor applies with a vengence.

Not that he'll thank me for saying it, but Hitch is a very useful contributor, often thoughtful, who, IMO sometimes lets his bile get in the way of discussion, and far too often lets his dislike of other posters, me included, do it.

Sceptic on the other hand never brings forward anything useful. It's just troll 24/7, but without the redeeming Hog humour.

Where you come between those extremes is up to you.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
Youve never had any problems defining other peoples motives on this forum before. You did it to me just a week ago.


But when someone else does it to you, suddenly it's wrong?
Since when is 'bile' a motive, Hitch? You do know what a 'motive' is, don't you?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
andy1234 said:
Steve Peters is currently one of the most influential men in sport.
Of course he could have just have filled his pockets with the contents of Sky's medicine cabinet, and jumped on the train to Liverpool. ;)

Doping may well be a reason for some riders success at Sky, but Peters' influence is way more than marginal.......
Reading about Peters lately, I'm not so sure he has had much of an influence on the road as in comparison to the track. He spoke today about his role at Liverpool and that Brailsford wants him to follow suit to go full-time working with Sky.

Agree that there is something different and added about this guy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2606248/EXCLUSIVE-Steve-Peters-claims-know-football-psychology-guru-key-Liverpool-title-charge-reference-Victoria-Pendleton.html
 
martinvickers said:
Where Hitch has put forward 'evidence', we've discussed it thoroughly - only recently another couple of rounds on the infamous Wiggins-Landis interview.

But when he states, simpliciter, that he is 'certain' and that's the end of it, Hitchens' razor applies with a vengence.

Not that he'll thank me for saying it, but Hitch is a very useful contributor, often thoughtful, who, IMO sometimes lets his bile get in the way of discussion, and far too often lets his dislike of other posters, me included, do it.

Sceptic on the other hand never brings forward anything useful. It's just troll 24/7, but without the redeeming Hog humour.

Where you come between those extremes is up to you.
So you don't get it? Hitch's certainty *was* supported by evidence.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
andy1234 said:
I think he is remaining incredibly calm in the face of the tag team baiting going on :confused:
I've said it before, some posters have a get out of jail card. Furiously denied by mods, but the proof's in the pudding.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Netserk said:
Like yourself :rolleyes:

If hog had derailed a thread a 10th as much as you do, he'd be banned without a warning.
Netserk, you've got yourself in trouble before. Please, don't do it again. I'm entitled to defend myself from trolling, baiting and personal attacks, which is frankly all that you and Sceptic have done the last few pages, and I will continue to do so.
 
martinvickers said:
Netserk, you've got yourself in trouble before. Please, don't do it again. I'm entitled to defend myself from trolling, baiting and personal attacks, which is frankly all that you and Sceptic have done the last few pages, and I will continue to do so.
Or Saint Vickers will punish me :rolleyes:
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Netserk said:
No it wasn't. Just because you turn a blind eye, doesn't make things go away.
Sky for me and others removed all doubt a long long time ago. I will not say that I don't know, because I do know. I am as certain of the fact that froome and Wiggins didn't just happen to both magically transform at the same time on the same team through a series of increasingly improbable coincidences, as I am of my own name.
That is a not arguing evidence, it's a declaration of immovable faith - "I know, and I'm certain and that's that".
 
gooner said:
Reading about Peters lately, I'm not so sure he has had much of an influence on the road as in comparison to the track. He spoke today about his role at Liverpool and that Brailsford wants him to follow suit to go full-time working with Sky.

Agree that there is something different and added about this guy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2606248/EXCLUSIVE-Steve-Peters-claims-know-football-psychology-guru-key-Liverpool-title-charge-reference-Victoria-Pendleton.html
Getting the best out of some of the track stars, who were as one may say were 'high maintenance' was clearly hard.

By comparison the Sky team must seem like a relatively normal collection of blokes, even allowing for Wiggo.
 
the sceptic said:
Good post.

I dont see much difference between the sky thread and the Horner threads.
Lots of people calling them dopers in both threads. Yet he has the grand total of 0 posts in the Horner thread.

Quite obvious that he has an agenda.
Now now, sceptic, that's unfair.

I have 378 posts (now 379) in this thread, and 13 in the Horner thread. I don't have an agenda that causes that, it's that that thread is way younger, I was way less interested when that thread kicked off, I couldn't give a flying one about Horner and debate is less involved because the arguments seem to be between those who think he's doping and those who think he's doping but it's ok because he's unmasking Lance/Sky/Nibali/Levi/Froome/insert boogeyman of your choice.

I had next to 0 posts in the Lance threads - I simply didn't want to get involved in the mudslinging that went on there. If I were new to the boards I wouldn't have bothered getting involved in the Sky threads, but since I've been here throughout, I can still follow what's going on.
 
Catwhoorg said:
Getting the best out of some of the track stars, who were as one may say were 'high maintenance' was clearly hard.

By comparison the Sky team must seem like a relatively normal collection of blokes, even allowing for Wiggo.
Peters' background is in treating psychopaths and the criminally insane.
A few trackies didn't tax him too much. ;)
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
0
0
The Hitch said:
How is netserk "trolling" you? He responds to the points in your post, the way you often do to others. That is trolling now?
Martin is entitled to defend himself against trolling. It says so right there in his post.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Now now, sceptic, that's unfair.

I have 378 posts (now 379) in this thread, and 13 in the Horner thread. I don't have an agenda that causes that, it's that that thread is way younger, I was way less interested when that thread kicked off, I couldn't give a flying one about Horner and debate is less involved because the arguments seem to be between those who think he's doping and those who think he's doping but it's ok because he's unmasking Lance/Sky/Nibali/Levi/Froome/insert boogeyman of your choice.
that's part of the point.
those in here stressing there's no evidence against sky/froome for some reason don't bother stressing the same in the horner thread.

admittedly, horner is a massive nobrainer, but so are froome/wiggins/sky, to be honest.
(well ok, on a scale of nobrainer-hood, horner perhaps scores 10 out of 10, sky maybe score 9 out of 10)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
sniper said:
that's part of the point.
those in here stressing there's no evidence against sky/froome for some reason don't bother stressing the same in the horner thread.

admittedly, horner is a massive nobrainer, but so are froome/wiggins/sky, to be honest.
(well ok, on a scale of nobrainer-hood, horner perhaps scores 10 out of 10, sky maybe score 9 out of 10)
Sky 9.99 out of 10 :)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY