Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[gazr99]

Find it funny people see evidence someone spat at Froome today but then go well he's probably lying about pissgate. Both are out of order

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?

The picture show someone spitting not throwing piss. Neither are acceptable but so far there are no pictures of pissgate.

Does it make it more or less likely that Porte was punched and Froome was pissed?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?

The picture show someone spitting not throwing piss. Neither are acceptable but so far there are no pictures of pissgate.

Does it make it more or less likely that Porte was punched and Froome was pissed?

Definitely shows there is content for Sky roadside, so it's not a giant leap so soon after big accusations against Froome/Sky came out that people would punch and throw piss

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Find it funny people see evidence someone spat at Froome today but then go well he's probably lying about pissgate. Both are out of order

both are out of order but spitting has precedent...in all walks of life...having piss thrown at you is far rarer....to the extent I can't think of any previous incidents..

if i see a wooly mammoth i don't post a picture of an elephant to prove it

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Does it make it more or less likely that Porte was punched and Froome was pissed?

I'd say the likelihood hasn't changed one bit, seeing as these are completely different situations in two completely different places.

The existence and actions of one idiot has little influence on the existence and actions of another idiot.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?

The picture show someone spitting not throwing piss. Neither are acceptable but so far there are no pictures of pissgate.

Does it make it more or less likely that Porte was punched and Froome was pissed?

I have no idea if they were punched/were given golden showers. I wasn't there.

As Sky defenders say when people say Froome's doping 'where's the evidence?'

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?

The picture show someone spitting not throwing piss. Neither are acceptable but so far there are no pictures of pissgate.

Does it make it more or less likely that Porte was punched and Froome was pissed?

Definitely shows there is content for Sky roadside, so it's not a giant leap so soon after big accusations against Froome/Sky came out that people would punch and throw piss

Circumstantial exaggerations and tenuous associations, no good all of a sudden.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?

The picture show someone spitting not throwing piss. Neither are acceptable but so far there are no pictures of pissgate.

Does it make it more or less likely that Porte was punched and Froome was pissed?

Roche was spat at in the Giro and Millar (R) in Vuelta...neither had piss thrown on them...

 

[Saint Unix]

It's amazing how quick the Sky fans in here are to connect the dots when trying to prove Sky are telling the truth, whereas the blinkers are firmly on every time someone calls Sky on their merde.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

Why did he skew that data? Does he not want to find out what happened?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

What really skews the data is the way that people ride as a domestique with no ambitions of a stage win, and a team leader in time trials.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Find it funny people see evidence someone spat at Froome today but then go well he's probably lying about pissgate. Both are out of order

No. What I am saying (and the link) is that only Froome and his teammates talked about Urine, even though multiple cameras (including who nows how many fans) didn't catch a thing.

Then we see someone spitting and we see the whole thing, which dispels the notion of #pissgate, that if someone threw urine from a cup, it would be caught on a camera, someones camera.

Hope the spitter gets charged by the Gendarmes.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

What really skews the data is the way that people ride as a domestique with no ambitions of a stage win, and a team leader in time trials.

I was coming to that.

 

[gazr99]

Re:

It's amazing how quick the Sky fans in here are to connect the dots when trying to prove Sky are telling the truth, whereas the blinkers are firmly on every time someone calls Sky on their merde.

Or on the other hand how those who don't like Sky, want to press a message of Sky are lying and definitely didn't have piss thrown at them, when there is evidence of people spitting at Froome showing discontent for the team and rider.

Maybe Sky paid the TV crews to edit the footage to make it seem like someone spat at Froome

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

Why did he skew that data? Does he not want to find out what happened?

bloomin' eck...seriously????

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

It's amazing how quick the Sky fans in here are to connect the dots when trying to prove Sky are telling the truth, whereas the blinkers are firmly on every time someone calls Sky on their merde.

Or on the other hand how those who don't like Sky, want to press a message of Sky are lying and definitely didn't have piss thrown at them, when there is evidence of people spitting at Froome showing discontent for the team and rider.

i think you are the only one to have used the word 'definitely'...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?

The picture show someone spitting not throwing piss. Neither are acceptable but so far there are no pictures of pissgate.

Does it make it more or less likely that Porte was punched and Froome was pissed?

Definitely shows there is content for Sky roadside, so it's not a giant leap so soon after big accusations against Froome/Sky came out that people would punch and throw piss

So you are saying Sky are allowed to make a leap, with no evidence, that people are throwing urine?

Sky fans spent since day one whinging about lack of evidence, yet you now, in sky's favour think it is ok to join dots.

Was their a vid of Porte being punched? It may have been a pat on the back but LRP is sensitive....

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Or on the other hand how those who don't like Sky, want to press a message of Sky are lying and definitely didn't have piss thrown at them, when there is evidence of people spitting at Froome showing discontent for the team and rider.

Maybe Sky paid the TV crews to edit the footage to make it seem like someone spat at Froome

No-one is questioning whether there is discontent. There is. Not just from the public, but from the pro teams.

But one person spitting doesn't prove in any way that someone threw a bottle of urine at Froome. To use a line out of David Walsh, Teller of Truths' book: Where are the witnesses? Only Sky seem to have seen this alleged piss throwing.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

What really skews the data is the way that people ride as a domestique with no ambitions of a stage win, and a team leader in time trials.

In the 2008 Tour Froome was taking it easy the day before so he could go hard on the time trials to see what his level was. Doesn't really explain how he finished minutes down on Millar at the Commonwealth Games in 2010 either. Doesn't seem like the kind of race where you'd want to take it easy to save your energy.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

Why did he skew that data? Does he not want to find out what happened?

It skews the data because it's a significant outlier.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Or on the other hand how those who don't like Sky, want to press a message of Sky are lying and definitely didn't have piss thrown at them, when there is evidence of people spitting at Froome showing discontent for the team and rider.

Maybe Sky paid the TV crews to edit the footage to make it seem like someone spat at Froome

No-one is questioning whether there is discontent. There is. Not just from the public, but from the pro teams.

But one person spitting doesn't prove in any way that someone threw a bottle of urine at Froome. To use a line out of David Walsh, Teller of Truths' book: Where are the witnesses? Only Sky seem to have seen this alleged piss throwing.

I agree it doesn't prove anything. But it shows Sky are a targeted team, so there is a possibility it did happen and Sky weren't lying

Just found it coincidental that when there is evidence someone spat at Sky, arguments start over whether they were lying about piss being thrown at them.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

Why did he skew that data? Does he not want to find out what happened?

bloomin' eck...seriously????

I know. Throw him out of the Academy I thought I saw the Saint admiringly cite John's Science the other day. Was surprised he didn't spot the possible flaws.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Or on the other hand how those who don't like Sky, want to press a message of Sky are lying and definitely didn't have piss thrown at them, when there is evidence of people spitting at Froome showing discontent for the team and rider.

Maybe Sky paid the TV crews to edit the footage to make it seem like someone spat at Froome

No-one is questioning whether there is discontent. There is. Not just from the public, but from the pro teams.

But one person spitting doesn't prove in any way that someone threw a bottle of urine at Froome. To use a line out of David Walsh, Teller of Truths' book: Where are the witnesses? Only Sky seem to have seen this alleged piss throwing.

I agree it doesn't prove anything. But it shows Sky are a targeted team, so there is a possibility it did happen and Sky weren't lying

Just found it coincidental that when there is evidence someone spat at Sky, arguments start over whether they were lying about piss being thrown at them.

because you've not followed the sport for very long...riders get spat at...they tend not to get piss thrown at them...

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta

The 28,3% margin in the second sample also skews the data.

Why did he skew that data? Does he not want to find out what happened?

bloomin' eck...seriously????

I know. Throw him out of the Academy I thought I saw the Saint admiringly cite John's Science the other day. Was surprised he didn't spot the possible flaws.

on no...i now think you think i was taking the piss (no pun intended ) out of Swanson and not you....must find the double face palm photo...