• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1138 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
RownhamHill said:
Maybe not. But I was pretty clear that's because I can't really make any of the arguments (clean or dirty) satisfactorily add up - wasn't I?
Last year Santa had a huge rise in performance, but since he was involved in Montova(sp?) we can conclude that it wasn't because he started doping last year, yet pretty much everyone could figure out his boost was doping fuelled. I don't know what he did different to years before, or why he started doing that last year and not before, but just because that might not 'add up' I wasn't ever in doubt that it was because of doping. Were you?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
RownhamHill said:
Maybe not. But I was pretty clear that's because I can't really make any of the arguments (clean or dirty) satisfactorily add up - wasn't I?

The dirty arguments are plain and clear. Add to that the history of the sport, the lack of transparency, the failure of UCI to tackle doping and to date to make it independent all point to dirty rather than clean.
 
Netserk said:
Last year Santa had a huge rise in performance, but since he was involved in Montova(sp?) we can conclude that it wasn't because he started doping last year, yet pretty much everyone could figure out his boost was doping fuelled. I don't know what he did different to years before, or why he started doing that last year and not before, but just because that might not 'add up' I wasn't ever in doubt that it was because of doping. Were you?

Ermmmmm, yes.

Well to be honest I don't know much about Santa (can't even spell his full name!) so I probably didn't have any opinion either way before he popped

But if your description is more or less right, and it's a fair assumption he was doping to the same level both in 2012 and 2013 (rather than going clean 2012 - doping 2013) then yeah, I don't know if you can fairly assign his uptick in performance to doping - maybe he trained differently, maybe he changed some other aspect of his prep, maybe he was doping in a completely different fashion (more, or different, dope). Or, maybe, he really was clean in 2012? I acknowledge all these possibilities without buying into one over the other - so plenty of doubt in my mind on the answer.

None of this means he wasn't doping in 2013 though, and he got caught and banned. So that's a good thing probably.
 
Benotti69 said:
The dirty arguments are plain and clear. Add to that the history of the sport, the lack of transparency, the failure of UCI to tackle doping and to date to make it independent all point to dirty rather than clean.

Maybe. Personally I just don't have your certainty either way. I am content that we have different opinions.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
wansteadimp said:
Sky's magic potion did it

or 10 posts to a page.

I'm undecided, there's no evidence or do I mean proof, besides Lance never did it like that.

It´s doping. All circumstancial evidence leads to it. I mean it can´t be true, that the last post of page 2.700 belongs to post 27.000. And then written by Foxxy, one of the few who does not speak out loud against Sky...
Suspicious to hell. It stinks. ;)
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
It´s doping. All circumstancial evidence leads to it. I mean it can´t be true, that the last post of page 2.700 belongs to post 27.000. And then written by Foxxy, one of the few who does not speak out loud against Sky...
Suspicious to hell. It stinks. ;)

Yes, but more of something belonging to a bridge (or under it anyway).
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
What evidence do we have to support that assumption?
-UCI is still relying on the worn PR messages.
-UCI still in control of announcing positives.
-UCI is most worried about gathering broadcast rights and growing viewers.
-Riders beating EPO times.
-Riders still transforming.
-PED's are cheaper and easier to use than ever.

Ok, then we assume the opposite; everybody is doping. Still makes Valv-Piti no more suspicious than others (let´s randomly say the guy who finished 23rd in Fleche), since he won everything since youth...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
Maybe FoxyBrown starts crying because I said I like Horner and this to him is the end of the world.

I don´t cry (max I get annoyed like when you write that LA BS like yeaterday for example. I mean that was stark. Another all time low). I never even start to insult somebody (like those who run out of arguments). You should just try for once going with reality instead of twisting it.
You started to cry when I reapeatetly was hitting out against CH (yet when you do it against Sky/Froome, it´s important informing). It got real ugly in the Chris square thread.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I don´t cry (max I get annoyed like when you write that LA BS like yeaterday for example. I mean that was stark. Another all time low). I never even start to insult somebody (like those who run out of arguments). You should just try for once going with reality instead of twisting it.
You started to cry when I reapeatetly was hitting out against CH (yet when you do it against Sky/Froome, it´s important informing). It got real ugly in the Chris square thread.

Good post.

I still have no idea what you were talking about with the Lance comment, so to call it BS means nothing to me. To call it an all time low speaks pretty well of my posting record.

Thanks!
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
Good post.

I still have no idea what you were talking about with the Lance comment

Thanks...

I recommend to go back reading it from my original post (where I said constant performances are less suspicious*...) all the way to the WT triple F post. May you get it then. If not, well... you are, sorry to say that, beyond help.

Have a nice day. :)

* BTW, you blamed others not to answer your posts (to explain why Sky is clean in their eyes), yet you havn´t answered me (instead opening a new discussion about who and who is not constant) what is un-suspicious or less suspicious for you. It´s not constant performance, it´s not up and downs. What is it?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
sky defenders base their opinions on faith, hope, and nationalism rather than logic and facts. Thats why the question "can you explain how Froome is clean" never gets answered.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
Thats why the question "can you explain how Froome is clean" never gets answered.

To be fair, most (all?) western legal systems are based on the assumption that you can't prove you've not done something, hence the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Plenty of people have provided explanations as to how Froome is clean - you just don't believe them. Which is perfectly fine, obviously.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Wallace and Gromit said:
To be fair, most (all?) western legal systems are based on the assumption that you can't prove you've not done something, hence the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Plenty of people have provided explanations as to how Froome is clean - you just don't believe them. Which is perfectly fine, obviously.

Legal systems that are fair and just (to a point) unlike pro cycling.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
Wallace and Gromit said:
To be fair, most (all?) western legal systems are based on the assumption that you can't prove you've not done something, hence the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Plenty of people have provided explanations as to how Froome is clean - you just don't believe them. Which is perfectly fine, obviously.
how many times to we have to go over this? legal systems have no relevance here.
 
RownhamHill said:
To be fair, it appeared like you made a very similar argument with regards to Wiggins dirtiness just the other day - as I understood it you compared the suggestion that Wiggins was clean as to being as believable as Santa dropping a watch in your garden, and therefore because you don't/can't believe the 'Wiggins is Clean' story as it's been presented, you don't need to explain the exact mechanism of his dirtiness. . . I'm not having a pop here - it's your feelings you're describing, so fair enough - just pointing out that's not so far removed from your 6th sense telling you he's dirty. . .

No.
This is a mistake so many people in the clinic make. An analogy is not the same as a comparison.

We were not discussing whether Wiggins is dirty, we were discussing whether it is possible to dismiss a theory without knowing what the right one is.

You asked how I could believe an answer is wrong without knowing what the correct answer is. I gave you a made up example of an unrealistic theory being dismissed by a logical person despite the person not having anternative theory.

It was an illustration for that particular discussion. Deliberately over the top to make the point.

The point being that it is not unreasonable for someone to be certain something is incorrect, even if they don't know what the correct answer.

To give a simpler less long winded example. Exactly how many grains of sand are there in the Sahara? You don't know? What if I say that the answer is 17.
Do you think my answer might be correct, or do you think you have sufficient evidence to dismiss my answer as being incorrect, even without knowing the answer yourself?

And that is not an argument that Wiggins is doping. That is an argument defending my ability to dismiss a theory - sky are clean, without knowing exactly what the correct answer is.

And btw I actually do have theories (unlike in my examples) and I have offered them. I think the most likely option is that Wiggins started doping after he found out Team Sky was going to set up with him potentially as Britains hero for the 2012 olympics, and started doping at the olympics. But I won't hold my hand into the fire for that theory because its perfectly possible that he started doping after the 2009 Giro when he saw he could climb but needed to do a bit more, or that he was introduced to doping by a friend in the off season, or that he doped before, but never went full in.

What I was arguing all along was more a philosophical point that one doesn't need to know the right answer to tell a wrong answer.
because you don't/can't believe the 'Wiggins is Clean' story as it's been presented, you don't need to explain the exact mechanism of his dirtiness. .. .

I don't need to explain the exact mechanisms. Why would I. Does someone who believes Indurain doped need to explain the exact mechanisms? what year he started, why he started that year, what drugs he used etc?

One doesn't need to know every little detail to have a conviction in the general theory.
 
Feb 10, 2013
36
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
sky defenders base their opinions on faith, hope, and nationalism rather than logic and facts. Thats why the question "can you explain how Froome is clean" never gets answered.

I think that anyone defending a rider accused of doping has to rely on faith and hope to a certain degree.

In fact I'd say that the regular "defenders" of Sky in this thread (unlike somewhere like the comments section on CN) are actually, as a whole considered intelligent posters who are willing to discuss the issues. Most of them are open to the possibility that Sky could be doping, even if they don't want it to be the case. I wouldn't even say that they are of the opinion that Sky are or aren't doping. More that they don't feel they have enough evidence to make up their mind one way or the other.

The key distinction here is what people want to believe and what they actually believe. Most people would want to believe that a rider or team that they are fans of are clean and doing things the right way. Conversely if a rider/team that they are fans of are being beaten by another rider/team many people want to be able to attribute that to something. Doping is an easy way to do this because of the history of the sport. "My rider only lost because x is doping". Does that mean that they are sure the rider they support is clean or the rider they don't like is doped? No. I think this is lost on many people here, on both sides of the argument. As long as the poster is open to debate, then their allegiance is irrelevant.
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
Thats why the question "can you explain how Froome is clean" never gets answered.

I doubt that's a question anyone can answer unless

i) You're the world's top human/sports physiologist
ii) Have access to all Froome's data
iii) Froome is actually clean

Which I expect doesn't apply to anyone is this thread.

The question is then essentially a variant on "Can you prove rider X is clean?" which is pretty impossible to answer.

Hence someone who believes rider X is clean can only sensibly reply "I don't think there is enough evidence to show this rider is doping - hence I will currently assume he's clean unless further information arises that will change my view."

Simply put, people who believe Froome could be clean think so because they don't think there is enough evidence to show he's doping. Obviously that will be a completely unsatisfactory answer to someone who thinks there is enough evidence.

I'm sure most people here could've conducted that logical thought process for themselves though ...
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Ok, then we assume the opposite; everybody is doping. Still makes Valv-Piti no more suspicious than others (let´s randomly say the guy who finished 23rd in Fleche), since he won everything since youth...

#1 we know, historically, that everyone is not doping. That's probably too literal anyway.

Since this is the Sky thread let's compare Froome with Valv-Piti.

Valv-Piti - Wins everything at elite development/low ranks then goes on to win highly prized elite events. This is consistent behaviour compared to 75+ years of bike racing.

Froome - Does not win everything at low ranks, yet tops stage racing fields for months at a time, then struggles in post-grand tour races. The only thing this is consistent with is some athletes who were later revealed to be oxygen vector doping.
 
Apr 10, 2011
4,818
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
#1 we know, historically, that everyone is not doping. That's probably too literal anyway.

Since this is the Sky thread let's compare Froome with Valv-Piti.

Valv-Piti - Wins everything at elite development/low ranks then goes on to win highly prized elite events. This is consistent behaviour compared to 75+ years of bike racing.

Froome - Does not win everything at low ranks, yet tops stage racing fields for months at a time, then struggles in post-grand tour races. The only thing this is consistent with is some athletes who were later revealed to be oxygen vector doping.

Tour winners usually don't perform much after winning Tour...

With obvious logical reasons considering you just won the biggest bike race in the world as well as the grullest. As well as all the media frenzy coming over to you in months ahead .
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
Visit site
deValtos said:
I doubt that's a question anyone can answer unless

i) You're the world's top human/sports physiologist
ii) Have access to all Froome's data
iii) Froome is actually clean

Which I expect doesn't apply to anyone is this thread.

The question is then essentially a variant on "Can you prove rider X is clean?" which is pretty impossible to answer.

Hence someone who believes rider X is clean can only sensibly reply "I don't think there is enough evidence to show this rider is doping - hence I will currently assume he's clean unless further information arises that will change my view."

Simply put, people who believe Froome could be clean think so because they don't think there is enough evidence to show he's doping. Obviously that will be a completely unsatisfactory answer to someone who thinks there is enough evidence.

I'm sure most people here could've conducted that logical thought process for themselves though ...

ii) is something that should be available if Froome has nothing to hide. Instead, Grappe had the data post Vuelta 2011. Which is just laughable. I mean, how stupid does Brailsford think we are?
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Thanks...

I recommend to go back reading it from my original post (where I said constant performances are less suspicious*...) all the way to the WT triple F post. May you get it then. If not, well... you are, sorry to say that, beyond help.

Have a nice day. :)

* BTW, you blamed others not to answer your posts (to explain why Sky is clean in their eyes), yet you havn´t answered me (instead opening a new discussion about who and who is not constant) what is un-suspicious or less suspicious for you. It´s not constant performance, it´s not up and downs. What is it?

I don't feel I can add anything to your posts on consistency as I find them utterly ill-informed, agenda-driven and pointless.
 
DirtyWorks said:
You had better check your pre-EPO history and revise accordingly.

Even post-EPO, there are some exceptions. Here is the Vuelta podium in 2008, with two guys whose team was barred from the Tour, and some other guy:

2008_vuelta_a_espana_final_podium_levi_leipheimer_alberto_contador_astana_carlos_sastre_csc.jpg
 
The Hitch said:
No.
This is a mistake so many people in the clinic make. An analogy is not the same as a comparison.

We were not discussing whether Wiggins is dirty, we were discussing whether it is possible to dismiss a theory without knowing what the right one is.

You asked how I could believe an answer is wrong without knowing what the correct answer is. I gave you a made up example of an unrealistic theory being dismissed by a logical person despite the person not having anternative theory.

It was an illustration for that particular discussion. Deliberately over the top to make the point.

The point being that it is not unreasonable for someone to be certain something is incorrect, even if they don't know what the correct answer.

To give a simpler less long winded example. Exactly how many grains of sand are there in the Sahara? You don't know? What if I say that the answer is 17.
Do you think my answer might be correct, or do you think you have sufficient evidence to dismiss my answer as being incorrect, even without knowing the answer yourself?

And that is not an argument that Wiggins is doping. That is an argument defending my ability to dismiss a theory - sky are clean, without knowing exactly what the correct answer is.

And btw I actually do have theories (unlike in my examples) and I have offered them. I think the most likely option is that Wiggins started doping after he found out Team Sky was going to set up with him potentially as Britains hero for the 2012 olympics, and started doping at the olympics. But I won't hold my hand into the fire for that theory because its perfectly possible that he started doping after the 2009 Giro when he saw he could climb but needed to do a bit more, or that he was introduced to doping by a friend in the off season, or that he doped before, but never went full in.

What I was arguing all along was more a philosophical point that one doesn't need to know the right answer to tell a wrong answer.


I don't need to explain the exact mechanisms. Why would I. Does someone who believes Indurain doped need to explain the exact mechanisms? what year he started, why he started that year, what drugs he used etc?

One doesn't need to know every little detail to have a conviction in the general theory.

Errr, yeah.

I kind of understood your point the first time around - you dismiss the idea that Wiggins is clean because you don't believe it, without being sure of the exact mechanism of his doping. I understand that as a valid point of view and I am not attacking it. (So no need for another treatise explaining it ;-). . .)

What I am suggesting is that that doesn't actually sound that far removed from the 'sky defenders' who have a 'feeling' Wiggins is clean without being able to explain the 50 arguments against. Those people (whoever they are) also have a conviction in the general theory (that sky are clean) without being able to explain every little detail - so it seems odd for you to become frustrated by that when it looks so similar to in thought process (all be it with a different conclusion drawn) to your own.