Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

Basically Sky have made a huge rod for their own back. They came into the sport with this idealist approach of zero-tolerance, then was forced to be more pragmatic as the harsh realities of a pro-tour bit. Rogers association with ferrari was known before they hired him, yet while ostentatiously they have broken their own rule, given the lack of positives during Rogers' career, that should have been a big enough of an alarm bell not to hire him in the first place.

Now in the wake of the USADA ruling they and re-iterated and toughed the zero-tolerance stance but have set themselves up for a massive fall if someone like Rogers signs the declaration. Legally they can't terminate the contract with the lack of evidence but the declaration looks a sham if he stays. Catch 22

Whether Rogers did actually dope or not is almost a moot point: given that he worked with Ferrari is enough to damn him in most people's eyes, mine included, and so there's needs to be some sort of reaction. If he was at garmin presumably he could admit to it, they'd be back-slaps all round, someone would start a Facebook page to show support for him (like someone did for Julich), we'd have some interviews in the press about how hard it was to cross that line and how much he regrets, and how he's been clean since 2006, and he'd carry on racing.

Which is the right way? I guess we now have a case of the zero-tolerance policy meaning one of the rats scuttles back under cover.

So if he was a Garmin he could admit and carry on racing.

Since he's at Sky he can lie and carry on racing. Or admit and carry racing at some other team. He must have plenty of world tour points, he would get snapped up by a team with a more relaxed policy, most likely Garmin.

Which begs the question how do we want this to play out? If you do believe he's clean then it doesn't really matter, he is tainted by training with Ferrari. Sky need to demonstrate their policy isn't a shame, even though there's plenty of people here that think that policy is short-sighted and only re-inforces omerta. But however this plays out Rogers will be racing next season. Plus ca change plus la meme chose

 

[Tinman]

Translated

Quote:
What I like -

Talking sh*t

What I don't like -

Being called on it.

Up to here you were doing well. I don't agree with your point of view but you are presenting yours. All good.

What can I tell you, sucks to be you...

And this is where you lose it. Just no need for this. Doesn't present you well, reflects on you not me.

The only other thing missing in your post is you restating your lawyer credentials and 'evidence' expectations. By the way any good lawyer knows that 'evidence' takes many forms not least of which is influencing the right people with 'information'. Want to comment on that as it relates to your presence/objectives here in the Clinic?

 

[M Sport]

Thats a lot of words there but still no links to any evidence better than attended a training camp and Sinkewtiz says t-mobile but not even Rogers specifically..

No official links yet, but that doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist. How long has the ASADA hotline been running? A week? How many calls do you think they will get about Rogers?

So if anyone has evidence that Rogers is a protected rider (ala Armstrong) then please post it. Why did the UCI chose to protect Rogers and not say Ivan Basso who received a 2yr ban??

CONI went after Basso, not the UCI. The UCI had to stand by and watch then made a token appearance at case later when CONI enforced the worldwide ban. If CONI hadn't of got the DNA the UCI would never have done anything.

 

[ebandit]

errrrrrrrr..............

No official links yet, but that doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist. How long has the ASADA hotline been running? A week? How many calls do you think they will get about Rogers?

errrrrrrrrr.............how many calls do you think they will get

omerta continues.............anyone knowing will likely to be covering

their own interests

 

[andy1234]

What I enjoy about this place:
- we can speculate here
- many folk who contribute in different ways
- join the dots allows for a reasonable process to hypothesize
- some personal humility from time to time as we all get it wrong occasionally
- humor

What I don't enjoy:
- threads being clogged by personal conflict being played out to the audience rather than PM
- personal grand standers with a need to prove themselves separately from the topic at hand ("I told you so, I am a lawyer, I have a PhD", etc)
- posters with expectations that this place is the real world, who insist on only 'hard evidence', whatever that means...
- posters twisting and attributing statements to others that are not intended
- posters routinely playing the man rather than the content

People stating an opinion is nomally met with, well, another opinion.
People stating opinion as fact, is rightly met with put up or shut up.

Funnily enough, many of the posters who appear most concerned by the integrity of the sport and its riders, show so little of that precious integrity themselves.

Defaming, lying and slandering is only wrong for the other guys, right?
It doesn't matter if you do it on an lowly intenet forum, its still morally corrupt.

 

[Tinman]

People stating an opinion is nomally met with, well, another opinion.
People stating opinion as fact, is rightly met with put up or shut up.

Funnily enough, many of the posters who appear most concerned by the integrity of the sport and its riders, show so little of that precious integrity themselves.

Defaming, lying and slandering is only wrong for the other guys, right?
It doesn't matter if you do it on an lowly intenet forum, its still morally corrupt.

Usually those screaming of defaming, lying and slandering are those with stuff to hide. Here they are folk generally with a big media presence and quite capable defending themselves if they want.

But yes it seems a way of life. Not just in the Clinic but in politics and business and elsewhere also. So nothing new here, if anything the nature of the debate here generally is of a higher standard than in everyday life IMHO.

 

[martinvickers]

Up to here you were doing well. I don't agree with your point of view but you are presenting yours. All good.

And this is where you lose it. Just no need for this. Doesn't present you well, reflects on you not me.

Seriously? You really think I care about what people in the Clinic think of me?

The lingua franca of this forum is sarcasm (see Hog); I simply decided to respond in kind. Stings, does it?

The only other thing missing in your post is you restating your lawyer credentials and 'evidence' expectations.

Well I've corrected that now.

By the way any good lawyer knows that 'evidence' takes many forms not least of which is influencing the right people with 'information'.

Every good lawyer knows what you describe is not evidence, it's advocacy. Most mediocre lawyers know it too. Honestly, don't try and teach granny to suck eggs.

Want to comment on that as it relates to your presence/objectives here in the Clinic?

See above.

My primary objective is, as far as possible in a very, very small way, to help catch and eliminate dopers. No more, no less. For the rather simple reason that I like sport, especially cycling, and I believe, as a matter of faith, that doping poisons sport, especially cycling. I reject, again mostly as a matter of faith, that we should just 'let everyone dope'. If the battle is not in essence one human v another human, stripped to their cores, I just don't see any point in emotional engagement in it - it's just WWE.

In my time here, however, it has become clear that some of those who 'claim' to be anti-doping actually have other agendas that have little enough to do with the truth.

Some clearly dislike doping intensely, but appear distracted by a chip on their shoulder. hatred of one team or another (usually Sky, amusingly enough in an anglophone forum), or one rider or another. This occasionally descends into rather silly conspiracy theories, and a tendency to bend the 'evidence' to fit the theory.

As Holmes said

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts

for the record its from A Scandal in Bohemia

Some just seem to hate the sport. No other way of putting it. They seem to enjoy its agonies. I find that very strange.

Some, quite a few actually, seem to suffer from the delusion that cynicism is the highest form of wisdom. Constantly believing that they and their acolytes with their battle weary eyes see through the veil where other mortals can't. They are the wise, the rest are 'fanboys'.

I think, oddly that Stephen Colbert explains my view on this best

Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us.

Someone else (Mary Angelou, maybe?) described as a cynic as someone who has gone from knowing nothing, to believing nothing. It is no improvement.

As we have flagged up, many, many, many times (please tell me you've seen Polcie Acadamy) I have an understanding of what counts as evidence in law. But that is actually not my main concern about the 'evidence', although it's an important concern.

My main concern is the logic of the evidence. Mathematical, whether inductive or deductive, provable and verifiable logic. And that means, in many cases, pulling apart the 'join the dots' approach so beloved of many in here - because it mascarades as logic, but is in fact nothing of the sort - it's pure guilt by association. In other words, witchhunting.

And the more we allow that to go unchallenged, the more the smoke it raises will actually obfiscate the truth. Because it undermines that evidence that is genuinely probative, genuinely logical, and allows people off the hook.

my 5c. It was 2c, but I'm charging a finders fee.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Because I know that Rogers power data that were measured over the years at the AIS are amongst the best that Australia has on record with Cadel being at the top, and his palmares from junior through senior ranks demonstrate that. Rogers on dope should actually be better than Cadel but he never has been. He came 9th in the 2006 tour and I think it is possible he could have achieved that without doping.

Uh huh. So perhaps you'd like to clarify what you meant when you said...

You are the one making an assumption about something which you know NOTHING about ie: exactly when Rogers began recording every training and racing kilometer with a power meter. I am saying, we don't know exactly when Rogers began recording training and racing with a power meter and if he recorded every training ride and race, so we don't know if that statement he made following the Dauphine is the 100% verifiable truth.

 

[bobbins]

It's ok folks,everything is ok.
http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...SportsCyclingNews+(Sky+Sports+|+Cycling+News)

Dave Brailsford has carried out a thorough investigation into Dave Brailsfords team and found that Dave Brailsford has done nothing wrong. Dave Bailsford commented, 'it is a very tough time for cycling but I am confident that Dave Brailsford has been nothing but professional and that his team is squeaky clean and performing better than everyone else due to having the best boss.'

 

[Tinman]

But however this plays out Rogers will be racing next season. Plus ca change plus la meme chose

I wouldn't be so sure of that yet. Sky 2013 lineup not yet announced, Padua investigation not yet concluded, and ASADA just getting started also.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Noticed a couple of coincidences recently.

2009: Wiggins 4th at TdF, doing his own thing

2010: Wiggins 21st or something at TdF @ SKy
1. Being micromanaged by Sky - too many advisors - no free time to do his own thing?
2. Padua investigation commenced in Italy - less access to medical help?
3. Only TdF since 2003 where WADA observers were involved.

Was the 2010 TdF "cleaner" for other riders beyond Wiggins? Too late for me to check but wondering, given the points #2 & #3 above if this had any impact at all...

 

[Tinman]

Seriously? You really think I care about what people in the Clinic think of me?

The lingua franca of this forum is sarcasm (see Hog); I simply decided to respond in kind. Stings, does it?

Well I've corrected that now.

Every good lawyer knows what you describe is not evidence, it's advocacy. Most mediocre lawyers know it too. Honestly, don't try and teach granny to suck eggs.

My primary objective is, as far as possible in a very, very small way, to help catch and eliminate dopers. No more, no less. For the rather simple reason that I like sport, especially cycling, and I believe, as a matter of faith, that doping poisons sport, especially cycling. I reject, again mostly as a matter of faith, that we should just 'let everyone dope'. If the battle is not in essence one human v another human, stripped to their cores, I just don't see any point in emotional engagement in it - it's just WWE.

In my time here, however, it has become clear that some of those who 'claim' to be anti-doping actually have other agendas that have little enough to do with the truth.

Some clearly dislike doping intensely, but appear distracted by a chip on their shoulder. hatred of one team or another (usually Sky, amusingly enough in an anglophone forum), or one rider or another. This occasionally descends into rather silly conspiracy theories, and a tendency to bend the 'evidence' to fit the theory.

Some just seem to hate the sport. No other way of putting it. They seem to enjoy its agonies. I find that very strange.

Some, quite a few actually, seem to suffer from the delusion that cynicism is the highest form of wisdom. Constantly believing that they and their acolytes with their battle weary eyes see through the veil where other mortals can't. They are the wise, the rest are 'fanboys'.

Someone else (Mary Angelou, maybe?) described as a cynic as someone who has gone from knowing nothing, to believing nothing. It is no improvement.

As we have flagged up, many, many, many times (please tell me you've seen Polcie Acadamy) I have an understanding of what counts as evidence in law. But that is actually not my main concern about the 'evidence', although it's an important concern.

My main concern is the logic of the evidence. Mathematical, whether inductive or deductive, provable and verifiable logic. And that means, in many cases, pulling apart the 'join the dots' approach so beloved of many in here - because it mascarades as logic, but is in fact nothing of the sort - it's pure guilt by association. In other words, witchhunting.

And the more we allow that to go unchallenged, the more the smoke it raises will actually obfiscate the truth. Because it undermines that evidence that is genuinely probative, genuinely logical, and allows people off the hook.

Your 'personalization' approach is not whether you don't care what people think of you, but instead it reflects on your inner personal standards, how you think of yourself (eg. personal dignity). No sting at all by the way, I kind of like sarcasm, particularly as humor or self deprecating, but interesting you start your post by personalizing in a negative way yet again.

Some good stuff in your post, ie your underpinning beliefs re doping, but some diatribe also (sorry), especially the last bits on smoke obfuscating truth.

I think the focus on Sky is because most posters here are anglophiles, as well as the 'clean policy' and 'overwhelming' performance in 2012. And whether you like it or not there is a serious credibility problem with team Sky. And as a granny I won't teach you to suck eggs on what that means for the public trial that is now inevitable and indeed entirely logical considering where the sport has come from.

There are other threads here also that focus on other teams, UCI, etc, but I don't think I have seen you in many of those (although could be wrong).

And maybe some of the Sky criticism is also explained by the fact that many of the senior members here have seen it all for years/decades with names changing but concepts the same. Can't blame them, and over aggressively attacking them only demonstrates lack of past perspective. On cycling, and The Clinic. IMHO.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Noticed a couple of coincidences recently.

2009: Wiggins 4th at TdF, doing his own thing

2010: Wiggins 21st or something at TdF @ SKy
1. Being micromanaged by Sky - too many advisors - no free time to do his own thing?
2. Padua investigation commenced in Italy - less access to medical help?
3. Only TdF since 2003 where WADA observers were involved.

Was the 2010 TdF "cleaner" for other riders beyond Wiggins? Too late for me to check but wondering, given the points #2 & #3 above if this had any impact at all...

According to the recently aired film "A year in Yellow" he was anything but micromanaged in 2010. He claims he went back on the drink, did little training and put on weight whilst lying to Sky as to how much training he was doing. It was only after 2010 that Shane Sutton and Brailsford micromanaged him

 

[JimmyFingers]

According to the recently aired film "A year in Yellow" he was anything but micromanaged in 2010. He claims he went back on the drink, did little training and put on weight whilst lying to Sky as to how much training he was doing. It was only after 2010 that Shane Sutton and Brailsford micromanaged him

Sssh, you're disputing the widely established facts that Wiggo was juiced in 2009 while riding for Garmin, despite JV saying here on this forum he's certain he was doping at Garmin (and that he isn't doping now), lost the bags in 2010, found them again in 2011 although there's uncertainty there because he crashed out the Tour and came behind Cobo and Froome in the Vuelta, although he did win the Dauphine (beating Cadel Evans, who won the Tour) ebfore getting on a big ol' programme for 2012, along with his buddies

 

[andy1234]

Sssh, you're disputing the widely established facts that Wiggo was juiced in 2009 while riding for Garmin, despite JV saying here on this forum he's certain he was doping at Garmin (and that he isn't doping now), lost the bags in 2010, found them again in 2011 although there's uncertainty there because he crashed out the Tour and came behind Cobo and Froome in the Vuelta, although he did win the Dauphine (beating Cadel Evans, who won the Tour) ebfore getting on a big ol' programme for 2012, along with his buddies

Thats some typo

 

[Froome19]

Noticed a couple of coincidences recently.

2009: Wiggins 4th at TdF, doing his own thing

2010: Wiggins 21st or something at TdF @ SKy
1. Being micromanaged by Sky - too many advisors - no free time to do his own thing?
2. Padua investigation commenced in Italy - less access to medical help?
3. Only TdF since 2003 where WADA observers were involved.

Was the 2010 TdF "cleaner" for other riders beyond Wiggins? Too late for me to check but wondering, given the points #2 & #3 above if this had any impact at all...

Defintion of a coincidence: something that happens by chance in a surprising or remarkable way

It is not all that surprising that a General classification rider in a Grand Tour happens to perform poorly. It happens all the time, this year we can look at the two favourites for the Giro Basso & Scarponi, at the Tour it was riders like Sanchez, Schleck, Gesink, Menchov, Valverde and Evans at the Vuelta it was riders such as Menchov, Anton (to a degree), Monfort etc. So no, that a rider does not perform as well from one Grand Tour to the next is certainly not a coincidence even if considering other factors.

 

[Froome19]

Sssh, you're disputing the widely established facts that Wiggo was juiced in 2009 while riding for Garmin, despite JV saying here on this forum he's certain he was doping at Garmin (and that he isn't doping now), lost the bags in 2010, found them again in 2011 although there's uncertainty there because he crashed out the Tour and came behind Cobo and Froome in the Vuelta, although he did win the Dauphine (beating Cadel Evans, who won the Tour) ebfore getting on a big ol' programme for 2012, along with his buddies

To be objective it should be considered that Wiggins did not train in preparation for the Tour under the auspices of Garmin, but rather in Manchester and other places under British Cycling..

But to be honest if JV says Wiggins was not doping I would take that as proof that Wiggins was not doping..

 

[blackcat]

But to be honest if JV says Wiggins was not doping I would take that as proof that Wiggins was not doping..

good for you, a walking talking human polygraph.

 

[Froome19]

good for you, a walking talking human polygraph.

I choose to believe JV because his comments and his actions in my eyes seem to indicate a level of truthfulness, just my opinion though.

You do not choose to believe what JV because his actions and opinions seem to be lies in your eyes, good for you..

Though personally I would say I have more justification to say that JV is telling the truth than you do to say JV is not telling the truth

 

[JimmyFingers]

I wouldn't be so sure of that yet. Sky 2013 lineup not yet announced, Padua investigation not yet concluded, and ASADA just getting started also.

Well I suppose then we can see if Rogers gets censured that way, rather than waiting for Sky to deal with him, which as has been shown is difficult for them.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I choose to believe JV because his comments and his actions in my eyes seem to indicate a level of truthfulness, just my opinion though.

You do not choose to believe what JV because his actions and opinions seem to be lies in your eyes, good for you..

Though personally I would say I have more justification to say that JV is telling the truth than you do to say JV is not telling the truth

This is the rub: differing opinions. I personally think Vaughters in on the level, many don't

 

[thehog]

But to be honest if JV says Wiggins was not doping I would take that as proof that Wiggins was not doping..

You mean this JV?

Upstanding gent. Never lied about an athlete before stating they were clean

It was two weeks before the 1999 Tour de France, and a young American rider asked his director sportif if he had anything to worry about.

The US Postal Service rider - and team-mate of Lance Armstrong - was nervous. Jonathan Vaughters said he had watched the whole Festina debacle of the previous Tour de France, and he didn't want to spend a week in a French gaol if the police carried out sweeping raids on the peloton and arrested riders based on circumstantial evidence.

"I was this skinny guy," he said this week. "I didn't want to end up being the girlfriend of some gendarme," he told Cyclingnews.

"I was thinking back (to that time) and I remember I could feel that we (USPS) were going to be real contenders for the Tour. So I called Johan (Bruyneel) and asked him if there was anything I should be worried about. He assured me and said, 'we're not going to be doing any of that (doping)'. Basically, he said there was none of that (in the team). There would be nothing to worry about."

Still, it was Vaughters himself who received a fright at the pre-Tour medical tests, as his hematocrit posted a 51 percent reading, above the UCI's limit of 50 percent, but still under his special dispensation of 52 percent. (Frequent testing had shown that Vaughters - like many good climbers - have naturally high hematocrit levels and they are granted dispensation from doctors.)

"I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."

But that year, it is now widely accepted even by the UCI, according to Vaughters, that its testing apparatus was calibrated somewhat high. He said this is not that uncommon, given that the machines are carried from race-to-race, through baggage handling and screening, and while efforts are made to ensure they are accurately calibrated, "there is some slop room" for variations.

But as far as Vaughters could see in the USPS team, "there was no first-hand evidence of anything (doping-related). I didn't see any evidence of EPO or anything like that. But that said, I wasn't there for the second and third weeks of the Tour," he said. (US Postal lost Jonathan Vaughters after he was caught up in the second fall over the Gois on stage 2. He was part of Armstrong's plan for the mountains.)

"I've kept in touch with (former USPS team-mates) Kevin (Livingston) and Frankie (Andreu) and it's never really come up," he said of any post-Tour doping revelations.

But later Vaughters admits, "Lance is a very private guy. You'd be surprised how little contact we had with him in the team."

Intended malice

Ironically, Armstrong's privacy is not reflected in the recent allegations from the French newspaper, that Vaughters described as "bizarre" and "weird".

"It's bizarre to me that what was supposedly an experiment for research has become this story," he said of L'Equipe's headline-grabbing story this week that urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France have shown evidence of EPO use, and the only rider claimed to be the donor of those samples is seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong.

"He's not going to get suspended, they're not going to take his Tour wins away, or they're not going to test the A samples. It's just weird."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/vaughters_1999

 

[Ferminal]

A team boss saying their team is clean, wow, what a revelation.

If it weren't for Bob Stapleton and Vaughters...

I can't wait for Giuseppe Martinelli or Roberto Amadio to assure us that their teams are clean.

MPCC and all that, cannot distrust them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

hahahaa!! I'm a scientist though aren't I? Asking for evidence is not the last thing I resort to, it's the first thing I look for and I'm proud of it.

You and everyone else are the ones obfuscating and wriggling around like a politician with fleas when I ask for you to produce something better than "attended training camp" ... "sinkewitz says t-mobile". That is 3 times in row you couldn't give me a straight up answer and finally made up some garbage about evidence being for the feeble minded.

Do the feeble minded even ask for evidence? I reckon you may have got that one ar$e about brother!

See - this is where you lose your arguements.
Here is a part of a post from you about Menchov on another thread:

I'm bringing this up because you felt the need to question me on the subject of Menchov vs Evans but it has now become a matter of proven fact that Menchov is dirty.

You have every right to be proud of you academic achievements and they can certainly add to any discussion on physiology.

But quite frankly it counts for absolutely nothing when you make ridiculous arguements and when you yourself use inconsistent arguements that is before we get in to the childish stuff of calling those you disagree with 'feeble minded'.

And in particular the way you constantly try to seek evidence when this is about Team Sky's policy only.

 

[martinvickers]

Some good stuff in your post, ie your underpinning beliefs re doping, but some diatribe also (sorry), especially the last bits on smoke obfuscating truth.

I think the focus on Sky is because most posters here are anglophiles

Anglophones, maybe. Anglophiles, really? - Hog, Wiggo, Benotti AngloPHILES? Nope, not buying that.

The singular focus is for the reasons stated above - a number of people have quite odd chips on their shoulder. As a non-brit, who will wave my little tricolour at every race, and consider An Post Sean Kelly my home team, even I can see it.

as well as the 'clean policy' and 'overwhelming' performance in 2012.

Again, observe

Garmin, Anglophone - tick,
'clean' policy, tick
2012 GT -Giro- win, and full of ex-dopers - tick

Where's the nine thousand post topic on that today? with the near million views?

Look at how Garmnin and JV are used on this thread - only as weapons, if they are useful for beating up on Sky, they are used as such; when not, they are written off and abused.

Facts twisted to suit theories.

How is that actually useful?

And whether you like it or not there is a serious credibility problem with team Sky. And as a granny I won't teach you to suck eggs on what that means for the public trial that is now inevitable and indeed entirely logical considering where the sport has come from.

I refer you back to the quotation from Holmes on twisting theories to suit facts.

They have a credibility problem. Entirely agree. Rogers is a PR disaster waiting to happen.

But nothing LiKe the one Astana, for one example, or Saxo-Tinkoff, have. They may wish differently - indeed, several very clearly do wish differently (wonder why)- but it ain't true. Not in the real world, were, you know, viewers and sponsors live.

There are other threads here also that focus on other teams, UCI, etc, but I don't think I have seen you in many of those (although could be wrong).

Had a quick check - last thread to name another team -

Astana - last post 14/11/
Number of replies - 20
Views - 2324

observe, Watson.

Sky - last post, today
Number of replies - 9112
Views - 936,613

number posts by Wiggo, benotti or Hog on Astana thread? Zero
number posts by Wiggo, benotti or Hog on Sky thread? As the stars in the heavens, or the grains of sand on the beach.

And maybe some of the Sky criticism is also explained by the fact that many of the senior members here have seen it all for years/decades with names changing but concepts the same. Can't blame them, and over aggressively attacking them only demonstrates lack of past perspective. On cycling, and The Clinic. IMHO.

Maybe, but I rather think I covered that in the cynicism is not wisdom section.

Skepticism - fine, bloody sensible

'Trust, but verify' - fine, scientific, let's start digging for some real facts

Cynicism, and then a load of 'fanboy' crap - pathetic, and barely fit for children. And makes actual backed-up allegations in here harder to trust.

you can have that 2c for free - it's pro bono