Re:
That's a fair point to a degree I think. It is difficult to conclude anything from an isolated example. In fairness though, it seems, as Hitch pointed out above, that you will have a similar rebuttal for any scenario, any mountain climbing speed etc. So it seems to me that you are arguing from a different burden of proof principle than most people here, so the argument becomes futile. I suspect most people here, myself included, convict Sky on a common sense or, in legal terms, a 'balance of probabilities' principle, and you would only convict Sky on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' principle. Would that be fair?
Beyond reasonable doubt is a logically justifiable position of course, maybe you receive derision for it because some posters would like to force you into a defense based on balance of probabilities and your rebuttals do of course seem very weak in that false context (false for you I mean). So, can I ask, rather than indulge circular arguments, what would it take for you to stop believing that Sky riders are clean? It's not a loaded question, it's a genuine one.
rick james said:well sky never really came to the front until the second to last climb, they had it very easy up until that point, but feel free to tell everyone a 6 minute effort = doping
That's a fair point to a degree I think. It is difficult to conclude anything from an isolated example. In fairness though, it seems, as Hitch pointed out above, that you will have a similar rebuttal for any scenario, any mountain climbing speed etc. So it seems to me that you are arguing from a different burden of proof principle than most people here, so the argument becomes futile. I suspect most people here, myself included, convict Sky on a common sense or, in legal terms, a 'balance of probabilities' principle, and you would only convict Sky on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' principle. Would that be fair?
Beyond reasonable doubt is a logically justifiable position of course, maybe you receive derision for it because some posters would like to force you into a defense based on balance of probabilities and your rebuttals do of course seem very weak in that false context (false for you I mean). So, can I ask, rather than indulge circular arguments, what would it take for you to stop believing that Sky riders are clean? It's not a loaded question, it's a genuine one.