Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Cavalier]

I wonder if you'll be as happy to revise the results after Armstrong goes down. Given how vociferously you've defended him on here in the past I highly doubt that.

So, how's that anonymity shtick you've got going on? Helps you make up lies about Kimmage etc yea?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually Ripper, it is exactly the same. Coming on the most infamous doping forum on a well known cycling forum and accusing riders of doping based on suspicions is the same. Doing so anonymously is also cowardly.

Using a moniker on a forum isn't in and of itself cowardly, but hiding behind that anonymity is, and if you can't see that, then it's probably because you don't want to.

Interesting point.
So, if Kimmage wants to get in touch with you to set you straight, does he put Mr. Straydog on the letter, or is your first name Stray?

 

[thehog]

But what I'm saying is that does not equate to guilt. The world is full of possibilities, I am open to the possibility that Sky dope. What I am not open to is the possibility that their success is solely down to doping. Good performance, particularly when within acceptable realms of human ability, does not make these sportsmen guilty by default, or guilty because of the lessons of history. Tell me the Sky team is fast as US Postal, that Froome is as fast as Pantani going up a hill.

Surely there is a simple truth there. Tell me that you don't have to spin a more complicated truth to counter-act it.

You seem to be the master of saying a lot yet saying nothing at all. Disingenuous maybe, genius certainly not. Taking a small point and trying to make it the main thrust of my argument is interesting but simply more passive-aggression.

You would make a great politician

I'm not being smart but you did ask for the simple truth - that if Sky are not as fast as USPS or Pantani going up hill then that would suggest cleanliness.

History has shown many riders, hundreds in fact who've been slower than Poatal and Pantani. But they've been caught doping.

You put it out there. Not me. If you don't believe in it then say so.

But methinks you were using it as play to prove Sky dont dope. Whereas I see it as reason why they do. And I have history and facts on my side.

Sorry to be disingenuous and right.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I'm not being smart but you did ask for the simple truth - that if Sky are not as fast as USPS or Pantani going up hill then that would suggest cleanliness.

History has shown many riders, hundreds in fact who've been slower than Poatal and Pantani. But they've been caught doping.

You put it out there. Not me. If you don't believe in it then say so.

But methinks you were using it as play to prove Sky dont dope. Whereas I see it as reason why they do. And I have history and fact on my side.

Sorry to be disingenuous and right.

You have history on your side, but you are a fool if you think that translates into fact. I realise how bad you want Sky to be doping, but it just doesn't make it the truth.

Unlike you I'm not saying that Sky definitely aren't, merely that there is good chance they aren't. To describe your OPINION as fact is laughable, you haven't met or spent anytime with the athletes, or seen them dope, it is all based on supposition. 2+2=5 for you, I'm merely saying there is a distinct chance it merely equals 4.

 

[Ripper]

Actually Ripper, it is exactly the same. Coming on the most infamous doping forum on a well known cycling forum and accusing riders of doping based on suspicions is the same. Doing so anonymously is also cowardly.

Using a moniker on a forum isn't in and of itself cowardly, but hiding behind that anonymity is, and if you can't see that, then it's probably because you don't want to.

Riiiiiiight.

Your opinion is different than mine, we'll just leave it at that. Thank goodness I don't think everyone with an anonymous name is cowardly though, think of how that might mute the world.

Actually, suspicions is what often leads to looking into things in more detail. Then again, I think you have some pretty vested reasons for posting on here Stray. Pretty darn vested indeed. That is a bit of irony

 

[straydog]

I wonder if you'll be as happy to revise the results after Armstrong goes down. Given how vociferously you've defended him on here in the past I highly doubt that.

So, how's that anonymity shtick you've got going on? Helps you make up lies about Kimmage etc yea?

Cav I think people are still waiting to see how you are going to try and wriggle out of accusing me of making up Wiggins 07 tour results. I think they're also kind of amazed still that you didn't know that he was 4th in london considering your clear knowledge of the sport. What did I revise by the way? Oh that Vino got disqualified in the ITT so technically BW was fifth? Oh yeah, that is so much more mediocre.

Dude...you need to take this one on the chin...even your mates can't come to the rescue here, and your attempts are looking increasingly pathetic and ludicrous.

I'd like to know what lies I have made up about kimmage too. My opinion that he is a boring oaf is hardly a lie and hardly new, it is however merely my opinion. That he doped as a pro and still sucked came from his mouth, not mine.

 

[thehog]

You have history on your side, but you are a fool if you think that translates into fact. I realise how bad you want Sky to be doping, but it just doesn't make it the truth.

Unlike you I'm not saying that Sky definitely aren't, merely that there is good chance they aren't. To describe your OPINION as fact is laughable, you haven't met or spent anytime with the athletes, or seen them dope, it is all based on supposition. 2+2=5 for you, I'm merely saying there is a distinct chance it merely equals 4.

There you go again. How do you know I haven't spent anytime with athletes? A guess? A shot in the dark? I hope? I assume you have proof to these statements?

You keep tripping over yourself. And the more I'm right the more angry you're getting.

First of all calm down. Breath. Take another deep breath.

Good.

Now I've said nothing about I want or what is fact. I mearly present my observations from a lifetime in the sport. It's open forum and your more than welcome to disagree. But coming in here all guns blazing telling everyone that you know best is probably not the way to get your point across.

You've already proved to me your logic is not sound. I do know that you want to believe that Sky don't dope. And that's ok. I really don't mind. It's up to you. Knock yourself out.

But if you're going to present evidence to suggest they don't at least get in the realm of believability before you do.

Clear?

 

[straydog]

Riiiiiiight.

Your opinion is different than mine, we'll just leave it at that. Thank goodness I don't think everyone with an anonymous name is cowardly though, think of how that might mute the world.

Actually, suspicions is what often leads to looking into things in more detail. Then again, I think you have some pretty vested reasons for posting on here Stray. Pretty darn vested indeed. That is a bit of irony

Oh wow this is fun. What is my vested interest? Please share.

Hiding behind anonymity is cowardly I said, not anonymity per se.

 

[straydog]

There you go again. How do you know I haven't spent anytime with athletes? A guess? A shot in the dark? I hope? I assume you have proof to these statements?

You keep tripping over yourself. And the more I'm right the more angry you're getting.

First of all calm down. Breath. Take another deep breath.

Good.

Now I've said nothing about I want or what is fact. I mearly present my observations from a lifetime in the sport. It's open forum and your more than welcome to disagree. But coming in here all guns blazing telling everyone that you know best is probably not the way to get your point across.

You've already proved to me your logic is not sound. I do know that you want to believe that Sky don't dope. And that's ok. I really don't mind. It's up to you. Knock yourself out.

But if you're going to present evidence to suggest they don't at least get in the realm of believability before you do.

Clear?

This from the man who said Indurain won "several" road stages on his way to his tour victories, whereas he actually won none. Only TT's. He only ever won one road stage at the TDF in 90, when he was 10 minutes back on GC. Way to go on believability Hog.

 

[JimmyFingers]

There you go again. How do you know I haven't spent anytime with athletes? A guess? A shot in the dark? I hope? I assume you have proof to these statements?

You keep tripping over yourself. And the more I'm right the more angry you're getting.

First of all calm down. Breath. Take another deep breath.

Good.

Now I've said nothing about I want or what is fact. I mearly present my observations from a lifetime in the sport. It's open forum and your more than welcome to disagree. But coming in here all guns blazing telling everyone that you know best is probably not the way to get your point across.

You've already proved to me your logic is not sound. I do know that you want to believe that Sky don't dope. And that's ok. I really don't mind. It's up to you. Knock yourself out.

But if you're going to present evidence to suggest they don't at least get in e realm of reality before you do.

Clear?

Not angry, not in the slightest, although you seem a little piqued.

So you have spent time with the Sky team then? Seen them dope first hand? I wasn't talking about athletes in general, just those you are so whole-heartedly trying to convict in this thread. A 'life-time' in the sport sounds a lot like bluster, making you sound a lot like you are drowning not waving.

You set yourself up as arbiter here, as judge and jury, so much of what you try to accuse me of reflects back to you. You are telling me consistently you know best, while I am merely trying to ascertain the possibility that other truths exist, beyond your narrow definition. You say to me I want Sky not to be doping, I say you want them to be. Who's right?

As for logic you have certainly done your best to twist mine to suit your agenda, but it doesn't wash with me. You are used to brow-beating people perhaps, but nothing you say is definitive. You ask for evidence yet have none beyond the fact that Sky are winning this tour. It is a house of cards.

It's crystal clear to me

 

[Cavalier]

Cav I think people are still waiting to see how you are going to try and wriggle out of accusing me of making up Wiggins 07 tour results. I think they're also kind of amazed still that you didn't know that he was 4th in london considering your clear knowledge of the sport. What did I revise by the way? Oh that Vino got disqualified so technically BW was fifth? Oh yeah, that is so much more mediocre.

You realise that the louder you say something, it doesn't make it more truthful, right? You're the one who registered here in July, not me. Pretending that your registration date somehow gives you more knowledge of the sport is, well, ludicrous.

I'd like to know what lies I have made up about kimmage too. My opinion that he is a boring oaf is hardly a lie and hardly new, it is however merely my opinion. That he doped as a pro and still sucked came from his mouth, not mine.

Well, we can start with you saying he was embedded with Sky for most of a year, when it was a weekend training camp. Or perhaps we can use your description of him as semi-literate? Quite amusing seeing you call a published author that.
Or perhaps we can nail down the fact you were making up animosity about Kimmage and Wiggins being down to Kimmage's time with Garmin when Wiggins wasn't even there?

Your posts really are quite poor, and your fascination with me, whilst flattering, really is bemusing. The irony is your dismal attempts to label me as the coward hiding behind anonymity are far more apt to be painted on you. I'm not hiding. My real name and identity is there for all the world to see, as is my picture, whilst you sit there and hide behind your non-de-plume and avatar slinging whatever you can at others in the hope some of it sticks, without any regard for factual basis.

Your initial idolisation of DW was a perfect case in point, until you realised he didn't share your opinion, which is when you then started to belittle him. It's a joke tactic, and it's no wonder you're held in such little esteem around these parts.

Despite me being here a far shorter period than you, I managed to build a far better reputation, and on the back of a single post, than you've managed in over two years.

So instead of attacking me over your preconceived ideas about my reg date, perhaps you could answer why you think Wiggins is suddenly climbing mountains like a goat, why he lost significant amounts of weight whilst gaining power and performing better in time trials, and why you think Team Sky hired a doping doctor under the guise of treating saddle sores, when he hasn't been attending races to treat them.

 

[straydog]

Not angry, not in the slightest, although you seem a little piqued.

So you have spent time with the Sky team then? Seen them dope first hand? I wasn't talking about athletes in general, just those you are so whole-heartedly trying to convict in this thread. A 'life-time' in the sport sounds a lot like bluster, making you sound a lot like you are drowning not waving.

You set yourself up as arbiter here, as judge and jury, so much of what you try to accuse me of reflects back to you. You are telling me consistently you know best, while I am merely trying to ascertain the possibility that other truths exist, beyond your narrow definition. You say to me I want Sky not to be doping, I say you want them to be. Who's right?

As for logic you have certainly done your best to twist mine to suit your agenda, but it doesn't wash with me. You are used to brow-beating people perhaps, but nothing you say is definitive. You ask for evidence yet have none beyond the fact that Sky are winning this tour. It is a house of cards.

It's crystal clear to me

Didn't take you long to figure hog out...but to the discerning it never does.

Mas will be along soon to take up the baton of veracity and "believability" (i.e ridiculous obsfucation) , then Benotti and if you are lucky maybe you'll get a drive by from Hugh Janus.


Enjoy, they're sweet deep down.

 

[mastersracer]

. And I have history and facts on my side.

You're just throwing darts - the notion that doping can be gleaned from performance in this cohort - unless they are physiologically unrealistic - is simply false. It's false for the reason that the conditional probability that rider X is doping given some performance is equal to the unconditional probability that he is doping. It doesn't add any information. In all your speculation you continue to fall back on the base rate (which is the unconditional probability) such as your statement above about history (base rates). Froome is doping, according to you, because some high rate of prior Tour podium finishers were doping.

To make matters worse, I'm willing to bet you don't have a single reliable bit of data regarding the correlation between doping (those testing positive) and performance over the last 3 years (the relevant reference class). I'd bet there isn't even a robust correlation between performance and doping positives. Schleck's case is actually negatively correlated. Good luck establishing evidence of doping from that.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Didn't take you long to figure hog out...but to the discerning it never does.

Mas will be along soon to take up the baton of veracity and "believability" (i.e ridiculous obsfucation) , then Benotti and if you are lucky maybe you'll get a drive by from Hugh Janus.


Enjoy, they're sweet deep down.

I would consider it but you guys really don't seem worth the effort. Your "hater hater" act is old news, and in light of recent events and your blind defense of a falling star I'm frankly a bit surprised to see you around. I guess you can just pretend you knew it all along.
It's a bad day on the interwebs when the hog is making the most sense in an argument. No offense meant hoggy.

 

[thehog]

You're just throwing darts - the notion that doping can be gleaned from performance in this cohort - unless they are physiologically unrealistic - is simply false. It's false for the reason that the conditional probability that rider X is doping given some performance is equal to the unconditional probability that he is doping. It doesn't add any information. In all your speculation you continue to fall back on the base rate (which is the unconditional probability) such as your statement above about history (base rates). Froome is doping, according to you, because some high rate of prior Tour podium finishers were doping.

To make matters worse, I'm willing to bet you don't have a single reliable bit of data regarding the correlation between doping (those testing positive) and performance over the last 3 years (the relevant reference class). I'd bet there isn't even a robust correlation between performance and doping positives. Schleck's case is actually negatively correlated. Good luck establishing evidence of doping from that.

I was mearly proving the other poster incorrect in her assessment that if your not as fast USPS or Patani you're clean.

Now I'm on trial?

I certainly see I've hit a raw nerve here.

Why would I be providing data? I'm not the one putting such bold claims out on the forum.

Not as fast as USPS or Pantani then your clean she said. I was just doing my job in cleaning up the mess.

I think i did an excellent dismantling job of that particular poster.

 

[sittingbison]

god Ive got a headache, straydog why didn't you go for that ride. After all, you keep signing off with "peace", and I was looking forward to some.

"If you think there is something extraordinary about riders of the quality of Porte, Mick Rogers and even EBH being able to briefly set a tempo so "blistering" as to drop, er, well, no one really, then I fear this is the wrong sport for you."

I don't know what race you have been watching straydog, but Rogers, Porte and Froome have chased down every escape immediately with large accelerations that have completely disintegrated the yellow jersey group, leaving only the the four Sky riders and the usual suspects like Nibali, Evans, VDB2 and TJVG. All the other climbers of note and previous GT winners and placers have all been cracked and dropped, only getting back on once the pace drops after the catch.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I was mearly proving the other poster incorrect in her assessment that if your not as fast USPS or Patani you're clean.

Now I'm on trial?

I certainly see I've hit a raw nerve here.

Why would I be providing data? I'm not the one putting such bold claims out on the forum.

Not as fast as USPS or Pantani then your clean she said. I was just doing my job in cleaning up the mess.

I think i did an excellent dismantling job of that particular poster.

She? That is so lame it's hilarious. It became obvious when you accused me of being angry and tripping myself up that your MO is to goad people into getting wound up and heated, where upon you unleash your patented condescension and claims of winning an argument when you lack the wit to actually engage in it.

So instead I'll claim the win.

She? Are you serious? I assumed you were out of school but now I'm not so sure.

Hahaha, seriously that's funny. She.

Oh and again it's 'you're clean she said'

 

[straydog]

You realise that the louder you say something, it doesn't make it more truthful, right? You're the one who registered here in July, not me. Pretending that your registration date somehow gives you more knowledge of the sport is, well, ludicrous.



Well, we can start with you saying he was embedded with Sky for most of a year, when it was a weekend training camp. Or perhaps we can use your description of him as semi-literate? Quite amusing seeing you call a published author that.
Or perhaps we can nail down the fact you were making up animosity about Kimmage and Wiggins being down to Kimmage's time with Garmin when Wiggins wasn't even there?

Your posts really are quite poor, and your fascination with me, whilst flattering, really is bemusing. The irony is your dismal attempts to label me as the coward hiding behind anonymity are far more apt to be painted on you. I'm not hiding. My real name and identity is there for all the world to see, as is my picture, whilst you sit there and hide behind your non-de-plume and avatar slinging whatever you can at others in the hope some of it sticks, without any regard for factual basis.

Your initial idolisation of DW was a perfect case in point, until you realised he didn't share your opinion, which is when you then started to belittle him. It's a joke tactic, and it's no wonder you're held in such little esteem around these parts.

Despite me being here a far shorter period than you, I managed to build a far better reputation, and on the back of a single post, than you've managed in over two years.

So instead of attacking me over your preconceived ideas about my reg date, perhaps you could answer why you think Wiggins is suddenly climbing mountains like a goat, why he lost significant amounts of weight whilst gaining power and performing better in time trials, and why you think Team Sky hired a doping doctor under the guise of treating saddle sores, when he hasn't been attending races to treat them.

Wow Cav, despite not knowing Wiggins placed 4th in the prologue and ITT at the TDF in 07 you are idolised here? Doesn't say much for your audience does it? And now I remember, you wrote that silly letter didn't you. The really desperate one. The one seeking some kind of recognition in a world you clearly know next to nothing about. The one where you with your infinite experience of elite racing and preparation try desperately to make yourself feel important...to mean something....anything.

Honestly getting pats on the back from the cult would be insulting if it wasn't so sad to watch. I almost wrote you an open letter. However, technically this is for another thread.

My initial idolisation of DW? Huh? He was phenomenal cyclist. Just because I think his subsequent experiences have left him with a bitter taste in his mouth and deeply cynical doesn't mean I don't think he was still a great rider. And I never tried to belittle him. I said something I immediately edited and retracted because it was not something I wanted to stoop to despite provocation, and was frankly wrong....something you seem to find it impossible to admit by the way, despite the clarity with which you accused me of making up Wiggin's palmares.

Cav, I don't claim that my being here longer than you makes me more knowledgeable. I think I am more knowledgeable than you cos you don't seem to even know that Wiggins came fourth in the TDF in London in 07. In london! Which makes me question how long you have actually followed this sport.

Finally whilst my experience as an elite doesn't render my opinion per se as more relevant than yours, it does allow me to question your motivations for trying to get a rise out of dedicated pros and to at least question where your expertise might lie.

As to my reputation or otherwise here, or yours for that matter. Dude, if I really needed validation do you think I'd look for it on an internet forum? Cos that would be really sad.

 

[Turner29]

To make matters worse, I'm willing to bet you don't have a single reliable bit of data regarding the correlation between doping (those testing positive) and performance over the last 3 years (the relevant reference class). I'd bet there isn't even a robust correlation between performance and doping positives. Schleck's case is actually negatively correlated. Good luck establishing evidence of doping from that.

Is not Operación Puerto alone evidence enough that a strong correlation exists to performance and doping?

 

[straydog]

god Ive got a headache, straydog why didn't you go for that ride. After all, you keep signing off with "peace", and I was looking forward to some.

"If you think there is something extraordinary about riders of the quality of Porte, Mick Rogers and even EBH being able to briefly set a tempo so "blistering" as to drop, er, well, no one really, then I fear this is the wrong sport for you."

I don't know what race you have been watching straydog, but Rogers, Porte and Froome have chased down every escape immediately with large accelerations that have completely disintegrated the yellow jersey group, leaving only the the four Sky riders and the usual suspects like Nibali, Evans, VDB2 and TJVG. All the other climbers of note and previous GT winners and placers have all been cracked and dropped, only getting back on once the pace drops after the catch.

the climbers of note? huh? er please tell me you don't mean leipheimer. Please. Or VDV. Who exactly of note?

Previous Gt winners? What Scarponi, Basso and Menchov? So the guys who have just come from the giro and the guy who hasn't done anything for the last two years?

What about today and yesterday Liquigas setting tempo?

Pax

 

[mastersracer]

Is not Operación Puerto alone evidence enough that a strong correlation exists to performance and doping?

This was more than 3 years ago and is used now for historical base rates (many of the resulting performances were also not physiologically plausible).

 

[mastersracer]

I was mearly proving the other poster incorrect in her assessment that if your not as fast USPS or Patani you're clean.

Now I'm on trial?

I certainly see I've hit a raw nerve here.

Why would I be providing data? I'm not the one putting such bold claims out on the forum.

snip.

well, I do seem to recall you made the claim that Sky was obviously doping because of their performance. The claims I just made suggest why this is a poor inference because performance - unless it is physiologically unrealistic - is neither evidence for or against doping. To serve as evidence it has to increase the conditional probability I mentioned, but you fall back on the unconditional probability (base rates). To do that, you'd need to show some reliable correlations between doping positives and performance. This used to be easy. Not anymore. As Schleck's case illustrates, they can actually be negatively correlated.

 

[straydog]

I would consider it but you guys really don't seem worth the effort. Your "hater hater" act is old news, and in light of recent events and your blind defense of a falling star I'm frankly a bit surprised to see you around. I guess you can just pretend you knew it all along.
It's a bad day on the interwebs when the hog is making the most sense in an argument. No offense meant hoggy.

gotta love a man with no sense of irony

 

[Havetts]

the climbers of note? huh? er please tell me you don't mean leipheimer. Please. Or VDV. Who exactly of note?

Previous Gt winners? What Scarponi, Basso and Menchov? So the guys who have just come from the giro and the guy who hasn't done anything for the last two years?

What about today and yesterday Liquigas setting tempo?

Pax

To the bold; yep, confirmed July fan.

And to Liquigas setting tempo, until Basso set the tempo it was Dominik Nerz, a 22 y/o neoprof who rode tempo. At the bottom of the Peyresourde there were: EBH, Porte, Rogers, Froome and Wiggins of Sky remaining. If a guy like EBH who has busted his guts off for Wiggins for about 17 race days can hold on to that pace you know it isnt tough at all.

 

[Cavalier]

Wow Cav, despite not knowing Wiggins placed 4th in the prologue and ITT at the TDF in 07 you are idolised here? Doesn't say much for your audience does it? And now I remember, you wrote that silly letter didn't you. The really desperate one. The one seeking some kind of recognition in a world you clearly know next to nothing about. The one where you with your infinite experience of elite racing and preparation try desperately to make yourself feel important...to mean something....anything.

Nope, unlike you, I don't need that validation. I'm happy with what I've achieved in life. I participated in sport to a high level when younger without being a world-beater, and I'm comfortable with that. Now I'm married with a young family, and I wouldn't change it for anything. I don't have a desire to feel important, so your terrible cross-forum analysis fails dismally, AGAIN.

My initial idolisation of DW? Huh? He was phenomenal cyclist. Just because I think his subsequent experiences have left him with a bitter taste in his mouth and deeply cynical doesn't mean I don't think he was still a great rider. And I never tried to belittle him. I said something I immediately edited and retracted because it was not something I wanted to stoop to despite provocation, and was frankly wrong....something you seem to find it impossible to admit by the way, despite the clarity with which you accused me of making up Wiggin's palmares.

So you did try and belittle him, and edited it. Glad you cleared that up. And no, I'm correct. Wiggins finished 5th in an ITT, not 4th as you claimed. The timing screens were pretty clear on that one at the time. I presume it's you, then, who doesn't know results? Not been following the sport long then?

Cav, I don't claim that my being here longer than you makes me more knowledgeable. I think I am more knowledgeable than you cos you don't seem to even know that Wiggins came fourth in the TDF in London in 07.

He came 4th in a prologue, yes. I was aware of it. I watched it, and I never said I wasn't aware of it Again you persist with this revisionist rubbish and utter falsehood. I also watched Vino win a time trial that year, something that seems to have escaped your memory (although I note with interest it apparently not escaping yours that Lance won a load of TdF's - bit selective of you?).

In london! Which makes me question how long you have actually followed this sport.

Not quite sure why you put an exclamation mark on London, like the location was remotely relevant. But I'd say I've been watching the sport probably longer than you have. I just don't have a need to bring out a viewing palmares to play your pathetic, stupid little game.

Finally whilst my experience as an elite doesn't render my opinion per se as more relevant than yours, it does allow me to question your motivations for trying to get a rise out of dedicated pros and to at least question where your expertise might lie.

Expertise as an elite.
Pray tell, what expertise is that, or are you simply making crap up yet again?
Again with the incorrect pseudo-analysis. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone.

As to my reputation or otherwise here, or yours for that matter. Dude, if I really needed validation do you think I'd look for it on an internet forum? Cos that would be really sad.

Yea, it's almost be like starting a thread seeking validation entitled "Why I will always be "fanboy" and proud of it". Not like you need that at all.

Nice dodge on all the Kimmage lies by the way - don't want to admit to those so just skip them?