Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[DirtyWorks]

Thus he couldn´t dominate youth races. And he couldn´t win big races at age 21 when his first PT pro contract came at age 23 on a 2nd tier team. So comparisons to Valv-Piti just can not be drawn. It´s impossible.

Well, here's where we disagree because if it were "pan y agua" he'd clean up at any event he raced. When he got to his 2nd tier team he'd clean up at 2nd-tier events and occasionally be seen near an elite podium moving swiftly to the world tour. None of that.

Where is Froome struggling after GTs? If he didn´t race (in official UCI races) after the 2013 TdF, you can´t blame him after a great constant season for struggling only b/c he ended it.

Ok, let's imagine he soft-pedaled the rest of the season. A guy driven enough to win an enormous 3 week stage race just turns that drive off. Seems legit.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

how many times to we have to go over this? legal systems have no relevance here.

The underlying logic is relevant though - you can't prove a negative. This feeds into legal systems and proving/explaining things on a forum.

Try and prove to me that you haven't fiddled your tax returns if you dispute this point!

 

[Benotti69]

The underlying logic is relevant though - you can't prove a negative. This feeds into legal systems and proving/explaining things on a forum.

Try and prove to me that you haven't fiddled your tax returns if you dispute this point!

The underlying logic is too look at the sport as a whole. The policing of the sport is run by those who are also trying to maximise the sport financially. Those 2 do sit together in a manner that lends one to believe they are compatible stable mates.

We don't need to prove a negative in here. The 'proof' of the sports cleanliness lies in the honesty of those governing and participating in the sport and they have failed massively on the 'honesty' score.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The underlying logic is too look at the sport as a whole. The policing of the sport is run by those who are also trying to maximise the sport financially. Those 2 do sit together in a manner that lends one to believe they are compatible stable mates.

I wouldn't dispute any of this, but this has nothing to do with the logical difficulties of proving that someone hasn't done something, as Sceptic's battle to prove he's not fiddled his tax returns will demonstrate!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I wouldn't dispute any of this, but this has nothing to do with the logical difficulties of proving that someone hasn't done something, as Sceptic's battle to prove he's not fiddled his tax returns will demonstrate!

The only bit you couldn't prove would be any cash transactions. Everything else has a trail, which could be published as evidence of his income / expenses and final tax bill.

Exactly the same for people racing who have BP test results, power files and race results.

If your tax year is Jan - Dec, the Sky release for Froome is like sceptic releasing his bank account et al details for July - December and getting a clean bill of health from Wiggins' accountant.

 

[gillan1969]

The only bit you couldn't prove would be any cash transactions. Everything else has a trail, which could be published as evidence of his income / expenses and final tax bill.

Exactly the same for people racing who have BP test results, power files and race results.

If your tax year is Jan - Dec, the Sky release for Froome is like sceptic releasing his bank account et al details for July - December and getting a clean bill of health from Wiggins' accountant.

exactly correct........Froome's tax went up considerably in 2011, apparently to the level it should have been at. To demonstrate his income on which this tax was based, sky released his figures. Only they won't release his income figures from before that....

nice try but no cigar on the tax analogy.....

 

[martinvickers]

The only bit you couldn't prove would be any cash transactions. Everything else has a trail, which could be published as evidence of his income / expenses and final tax bill.

How does he prove he doesn't have a second bank account in a false name through which he passes his ill gotten gains? How does he prove he doesn't have a man in the Revenue making sure he's not caught? etc., etc....

Tax is one of the most scrutinized areas of life, as you rightly suggest, far more than any sport is, or ever will be...and it is still impossible to PROVE he's not cheated his tax.

 

[gillan1969]

How does he prove he doesn't have a second bank account in a false name through which he passes his ill gotten gains? How does he prove he doesn't have a man in the Revenue making sure he's not caught? etc., etc....

Tax is one of the most scrutinized areas of life, as you rightly suggest, far more than any sport is, or ever will be...and it is still impossible to PROVE he's not cheated his tax.

indeed...his tax should match his income. So, when a bloke pays 10k per annum in income tax we can assume his income is x amount and under 40k. If however we then see a ferrari, see him in posh restaurants and with other such luxury items...we can sort of guess he is...eh...fiddling his tax

so when we don't get Froomes pre 2011 VO2 results (or any other figures)....we can sort of guess he is....eh...doping

Sky could clear this one up easily....release the data

 

[martinvickers]

indeed...his tax should match his income. So, when a bloke pays 10k per annum in income tax we can assume his income is x amount and under 40k. If however we then see a ferrari, see him in posh restaurants and with other such luxury items...we can sort of guess he is...eh...fiddling his tax

Or the ferrari is a gift from his usccesful brother/uncle/boyfriend/girlfriend, or a promotional item on loan, or the result of a lottery or gambling win, or he's earned a fortune and is currently simply living off the interest...or...or

See the problem? It's easy to assume a negative. It's more or less impossible to prove it.

 

[Benotti69]

I wouldn't dispute any of this, but this has nothing to do with the logical difficulties of proving that someone hasn't done something, as Sceptic's battle to prove he's not fiddled his tax returns will demonstrate!

But this forum is not for discussing tax.

This forum is discussion based and no burden of proof is required.

 

[Benotti69]

Most people set up companies to avoid tax.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

indeed...his tax should match his income. So, when a bloke pays 10k per annum in income tax we can assume his income is x amount and under 40k. If however we then see a ferrari, see him in posh restaurants and with other such luxury items...we can sort of guess he is...eh...fiddling his tax

so when we don't get Froomes pre 2011 VO2 results (or any other figures)....we can sort of guess he is....eh...doping

Sky could clear this one up easily....release the data

I didn't want to pursue the line of reasoning as it seemed incredibly flawed to begin with. But for starters, it would not be an account under a false name. It would have to be an account under a false identity - ie you can't just say, "Hi, I'm John Smith can I open an account please?" You have to provide evidence of who you are, usually a certain number of points worth, including photo ID.

The problem with this is: a pro cyclist is not going to be pretending to be someone else when he gives his urine sample, finishes a race or trains on his power meter enabled bike. The data is going to be his, and he's not going to be hiding it under a false identity or something ...

As for the analogy of someone working in the Revenue office protecting you, well no, we can't prove that either. With the whole UCI head Cookson -- Team Sky performance supplements supplier (Cookson's son) -- Team Sky riders links, it's a valid analogy, but again, start with the facts we do have, which is all the data to date.

 

[gillan1969]

Or the ferrari is a gift from his usccesful brother/uncle/boyfriend/girlfriend, or a promotional item on loan, or the result of a lottery or gambling win, or he's earned a fortune and is currently simply living off the interest...or...or

See the problem? It's easy to assume a negative. It's more or less impossible to prove it.

indeed martin...however, not sure if you've checked the recent history of GT winners....so... doping it is then

 

[martinvickers]

But this forum is not for discussing tax.

This forum is discussion based and no burden of proof is required.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

And round and round we go...

 

[martinvickers]

indeed martin...however, not sure if you've checked the recent history of GT winners....so... doping it is then

That's...pretty much a meaningless addition.

 

[Benotti69]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

And round and round we go...

Proof and evidence are 2 different things in a discussion. This is not a court as much as you pontificate as if it is one.

 

[Ripper]

Just a few days ago I pretty much made it clear (again) that I do not believe in Wiggins. Anyway, my mistake. I should not assume that you want to sift trou all this inflated thread...

I am confused - are you arguing that Froome is not doping? Or that he is not as bad as others?

 

[martinvickers]

Proof and evidence are 2 different things in a discussion. This is not a court as much as you pontificate as if it is one.

One is inextricably linked to the other. and the above is not a rule of law. it's a principle of basic logic in discussion and debate.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", rendered into English by Christopher Hitchens

So do try again.

 

[gillan1969]

That's...pretty much a meaningless addition.

what seriously? you see a suspicious performance in pro cycling an assume there is an innocent explanation....you give money to nigerian scamsters?

ok...you can't get 'form' from other people e.g. your gift example...unless your getting autologous transfusions that is....

there isn't a plausible explanation other than doping...

 

[Benotti69]

One is inextricably linked to the other. and the above is not a rule of law. it's a principle of basic logic in discussion and debate.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", rendered into English by Christopher Hitchens

So do try again.

Still pontificating as per usual Rev Vickers.

Basic logic would tell us Sky are doping. The basic logic is based on the sport not having changed, the UCI still policing and running the sport, the same doctors, the same DS, the same riders back etc etc yada........

That we dont have a syringe/vial full of a PED is neither here nor there for a forum.

Do keep up old chap.

 

[martinvickers]

Still pontificating as per usual Rev Vickers.

Basic logic would tell us Sky are doping. The basic logic is based on the sport not having changed

An unevidenced dogmatic belief. Not logic. Not even close.

the UCI still policing and running the sport

Who else do you expect to administer a sport than the administrators? A ridiculous non-point. Not least when the personell have very publically changed.

the same doctors

Alan Farrell?

That we dont have a syringe/vial full of a PED is neither here nor there for a forum.

Strawman. No-one has suggested that this and this alone is evidence except you. And you build the strawman because you can't seem to sensibly attack the actual arguments, so you make up a false one its easier to take on.

Do keep up old chap.

Keep up? You can't even hold my wheel, B.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If I didn't know better, I'd be suggesting there's a tax avoidance vortex brewing...

Such irony given Wiggins' attempt at same

 

[martinvickers]

If I didn't know better, I'd be suggesting there's a tax avoidance vortex brewing...

Such irony given Wiggins' attempt at same

My sister in law works for one of the big four in tax consultancy (law and accountancy graduate) - some of the shinannigans she's alluded to seeing make bike racing seem squeakly clean. And that's just the legal scams.

 

[Benotti69]

An unevidenced dogmatic belief. Not logic. Not even close.

Bollo*

People believing teams and the sport found cleanliness is dogmatic belief.

Who else do you expect to administer a sport than the administrators? A ridiculous non-point. Not least when the personell have very publically changed.

The personell, Cookson is old school. He has come from a Federation FFS. But then again you think some of the sprinters in athletics dont dope!!!

Alan Farrell?

From a premiership team yeah he'll be right clean that lad.

more bollo*

Those who demand proofs and then spout you cant prove a negative are obfuscating the discussion.

There is buckets of evidence that the sport has not changed a jot, except teams have finally copped on to being logistically better and more secretive about their doping due to some large sponsors going awol. Now to do with anti doping testing being up to date or UCI cracking down on doping.

 

[red_flanders]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

And round and round we go...

As some of those who argue for the possible cleanliness have already stated and conceded (because it's blatantly obvious and has been stated a hundred times on this thread) there is plenty of evidence against Sky which strongly suggests they are doping.

For someone to continually re-assert that there is no evidence is not only illogical, wrong and frankly dumb...or it's just pure trolling.

I wait with baited breath for the genius response to follow.