Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Digger]

Last year I said on twitter that I knew Steve Johnson had been told about lance's doping many years ago and did nothing. I said he had been told by more than one person.
I was asked for my source. I refused to say. Then I was told I was full of sh** and was clearly making it up simply because I would not reveal my source.


Bobbins case would have been no different.

 

[Catwhoorg]

The marijuana was for medicinal use, but it wasn't a small amount, it was about seven or more plants being grown IIRC. But nothing morally wrong with what he was doing, and he came onto the forum to explain it to us, which was appreciated.

And even if it was recreational, there still isn't anything morally wrong with it.

Jimmy, thats your opinion. Other peoples may actually differ.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I never said it wasn't: people have distinct moral codes, I never claimed I spoke for the human race.

That said I do believe criminalising marijuana was a huge mistake, and a corrupt one bought about by the paper-making industry to protect their interests as hemp makes better paper than wood. The benefits of the plant far outway any issues with it being used recreationally.

In my opinion.

 

[Catwhoorg]

The pragmatist in me says that the decriminalization of pot I think is a good thing, mainly to decouple the supply from harder drugs.
(Its happened already in a few US states, but not Georgia)

I still don't think its "right" for me.

And yes, having had a glass of wine last night, and a couple of cups of coffee this morning, I am aware that this is a bit of a double standard.

 

[MartinGT]

Well, that was 'interesting' reading through them last pages.

Jasys, has this thread seriously gone down hill! Martin, what is wrong with you man? You seriously need to relax man, you will have a heart attack!

 

[martinvickers]

Well, that was 'interesting' reading through them last pages.

Jasys, has this thread seriously gone down hill! Martin, what is wrong with you man? You seriously need to relax man, you will have a heart attack!

Don't you worry, Martin, my ticker's tip top. The legs have seen better days, mind, but them's the breaks.

This thread went to sh!te a long, LONG, time ago. It's a freak show now. It's not the only one. The Clinic generally is poorly served. The idea that a couple of posters not accepting the BS, and then refusing to be cowed by the unpleasantness of the 'cool kids gang' ha somehow dragged this thread to unheard of depths is, frankly, risible.

It is what it is; a circus. and while lots of posters think they are the liontamer, you come to the circus to see the clowns.

 

[the sceptic]

How about I not bother. Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.

And this thread is evidence of how, despite all your best efforts, you can't put scraps of evidence together to form a definitive proof. Hence why I stay on the fence and don't join your little lynch mob.

I remember you whooping for joy in this forum when a rumoured positive from last year's Giro turned out not to be Nibali. When asked you said you thought he was doping, but you were glad he wasn't positive. Forgive me if I don't take your anti-doping credentials too seriously.

Is the clinic a criminal trial now?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Yawn

10 char

 

[the sceptic]

Yawn

10 char

im just trying to figure out why you think its only the "sky is doping" assumption that requires proof, but not "sky are cleans".

 

[red_flanders]

How about I not bother. Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.

And this thread is evidence of how, despite all your best efforts, you can't put scraps of evidence together to form a definitive proof. Hence why I stay on the fence and don't join your little lynch mob.

One need not have proof to form an opinion, nor have I ever seen anyone claim they have proof of Sky doping.

If you need proof to form an opinion, it's not an opinion, it's simply recognition of facts. So what you're essentially saying here is that having an opinion equals being a lynch mob. That's dumb.

If fence-sitting is the way you want to go about thinking about things, that's fine for you, simply state such and move on. It's ridiculous however to criticize others for forming opinions based on the existing evidence. Forming an opinion based on inconclusive evidence is how most people operate to get through every day. We all make decisions based on incomplete evidence.

As has been said a million times in this thread and outlined in the thread you claim not to want to read, proof is a standard called for when the consequences are sanctions, loss of liberty or loss of privilege.

It is decidedly not the standard for forming an opinion.

 

[Catwhoorg]

im just trying to figure out why you think its only the "sky is doping" assumption that requires proof, but not "sky are cleans".

I think that would be "innocent until proven guilty", but that's not really the basis for discussion.


A better place would be working off of peoples null hypothesis (the default assumption if you wish)

I (and a few others by their postings) work off a null hypothesis that any probike rider is clean, until there is enough evidence to show otherwise.


Plenty of posters here operate off the null hypothesis that any probike rider is dirty, unless there is enough evidence to show otherwise.



This completely different basis for starting to look at any rider (but obviously in reference to this thread Sky specifically) is why so often people end up talking past each other.

 

[martinvickers]

I think that would be "innocent until proven guilty", but that's not really the basis for discussion.


A better place would be working off of peoples null hypothesis (the default assumption if you wish)

I (and a few others by their postings) work off a null hypothesis that any probike rider is clean, until there is enough evidence to show otherwise.


Plenty of posters here operate off the null hypothesis that any probike rider is dirty, unless there is enough evidence to show otherwise.



This completely different basis for starting to look at any rider (but obviously in reference to this thread Sky specifically) is why so often people end up talking past each other.

The problem with the second null hypothesis is that it can only be countered by conclusive proof of a negative (positive proof that rider X has never doped at any moment, on any day, in any place in any way). This isn't logically possible short of the Truman Show, and so we end up with a type of Russell's Teapot; a dogmatic and unfalsifiable statement is made, and then the maker demands the unfalsifiable is falsified before accepting it may not be true. Which is an absurdity.

Or with apologies to Bury -

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false.

But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter. ... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed?

Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.

 

[the sceptic]

I think that would be "innocent until proven guilty", but that's not really the basis for discussion.


A better place would be working off of peoples null hypothesis (the default assumption if you wish)

I (and a few others by their postings) work off a null hypothesis that any probike rider is clean, until there is enough evidence to show otherwise.


Plenty of posters here operate off the null hypothesis that any probike rider is dirty, unless there is enough evidence to show otherwise.



This completely different basis for starting to look at any rider (but obviously in reference to this thread Sky specifically) is why so often people end up talking past each other.

"innocent until proven guilty" has no relevance here though. It just means a legal system shouldnt throw innocent people in jail without due process.

as we know, the clinic isnt about handing out bans, its a place for discussion.

in a debate, shouldnt the burden of proof rest on whoever is making the claim? so if you say sky are cleans, its up to you to present the evidence to convince me that you are right. And vice versa.

 

[JimmyFingers]

One need not have proof to form an opinion, nor have I ever seen anyone claim they have proof of Sky doping.

If you need proof to form an opinion, it's not an opinion, it's simply recognition of facts. So what you're essentially saying here is that having an opinion equals being a lynch mob. That's dumb.

If fence-sitting is the way you want to go about thinking about things, that's fine for you, simply state such and move on. It's ridiculous however to criticize others for forming opinions based on the existing evidence. Forming an opinion based on inconclusive evidence is how most people operate to get through every day. We all make decisions based on incomplete evidence.

As has been said a million times in this thread and outlined in the thread you claim not to want to read, proof is a standard called for when the consequences are sanctions, loss of liberty or loss of privilege.

It is decidedly not the standard for forming an opinion.

I have no problems with opinions at all, based on whatever evidence, anecdotes or rumours, as long as it is presented as opinion. However many, many times rather people saying they think Sky may be doping they say I know Sky are doping, that they are certain, that there is no need for proof, they can see it, they are certain. The Hitch recently posted an over-long and typically bombastic post outlining why he knew Sky was doping and how he felt people that didn't agree were idiots.

That's what I dislike. I also dislike the constant sniping of people that don't share that opinion, and consistent and unpleasant attempts to undermine and belittle people that hold that opinion through mockery, sarcasm and condescencion.

I don't know anything for certain in regards to Sky or any other team for that matter. I base my opinion on the information I garner like other people, however I won't come out with some definitive statement. I'll say I hope Wiggins is clean, or I think Sky don't have a team-wide doping programme. I've also frequently said the truth will out, we know for sure eventually.

Until then I'm not prepared to condemn athletes as cheats until I am sure they are. I don't play games in here: I don't support Sky while slamming Contador as a doper for example. Personally I've never understood the grief I get in here for holding that view, why people are so offended that I'm not prepared to jump on that lynch mob, and so resort to dismissing my opinion as blind fanboyism, or most recently nationalism. That isn't how I tick, and I get very fed up with people trying to explain my motives to me. You don't know me, don't tell me how I am thinking, or why. And don't insult me simply because I am not saying the same things as you are.

(that last bit isn't really directed at you red_flanders, I can't remember you baiting or mocking me to any sort of extreme).

 

[martinvickers]

One need not have proof to form an opinion, nor have I ever seen anyone claim they have proof of Sky doping.

If you need proof to form an opinion, it's not an opinion, it's simply recognition of facts. So what you're essentially saying here is that having an opinion equals being a lynch mob. That's dumb.

If fence-sitting is the way you want to go about thinking about things, that's fine for you, simply state such and move on. It's ridiculous however to criticize others for forming opinions based on the existing evidence. Forming an opinion based on inconclusive evidence is how most people operate to get through every day. We all make decisions based on incomplete evidence.

As has been said a million times in this thread and outlined in the thread you claim not to want to read, proof is a standard called for when the consequences are sanctions, loss of liberty or loss of privilege.

It is decidedly not the standard for forming an opinion.

Perhaps, but mere opinions are meaningless without evidence or argument. They're not worth the keystrokes they are written with.

Moreover, many of these 'opinions' are stated and defended as if proven fact, and the declaration by others that is ia mere opinion is greated, frankly, with rage and sweariness, and bold declarations that these 'opinions' are not opinions, but facts. As you well know.

You can have an opinion, certainly. And have it treated as a mere opinion is properly treated, dismissively.

Or you can claim it's really knowledge or fact, and defend it with evidence, proofs and logic.

But you can't have both.

 

[martinvickers]

"innocent until proven guilty" has no relevance here though. It just means a legal system shouldnt throw innocent people in jail without due process.

as we know, the clinic isnt about handing out bans, its a place for discussion.

in a debate, shouldnt the burden of proof rest on whoever is making the claim? so if you say sky are cleans, its up to you to present the evidence to convince me that you are right. And vice versa.

Yes. absolutely.

Except - NOBODY really claims Sky are clean, or anyone else. What IS claimed is that there as yet no conclusive proof they are dirty. Which is not the same thing at all.

Indeed, my own refusal to 'get off the fence' and make a dogmatic claim has driven you to admit outright baiting of me in the past. Hypocrisy, thy name is Sceptic.

Whereas it is regularly claimed, as fact, that Sky are dirty, and naysayers or agnostics mocked; Given that claim, it IS on the makers to PROVE their claim, quite right.

As Hitchens (not Hitch, interestingly) said :

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

.

 

[JimmyFingers]

im just trying to figure out why you think its only the "sky is doping" assumption that requires proof, but not "sky are cleans".

That less of a strawman, and more of a whickerman my friend.

 

[the sceptic]

Yes. absolutely.

Except - NOBODY really claims Sky are clean, or anyone else. What IS claimed is that there as yet no conclusive proof they are dirty. Which is not the same thing at all.

Indeed, my own refusal to 'get off the fence' and make a dogmatic claim has driven you to admit outright baiting of me in the past. Hypocrisy, thy name is Sceptic.

Whereas it is regularly claimed, as fact, that Sky are dirty, and naysayers or agnostics mocked; Given that claim, it IS on the makers to PROVE their claim, quite right.

As Hitchens (not Hitch, interestingly) said :

.

This post sounds like a bunch of horse**** to me.

Wake me up when you have something real to contribute and not a lot of words that mean nothing.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just because you can't grasp their meaning, doesn't make them meaningless

 

[martinvickers]

This post sounds like a bunch of horse**** to me.

Then get your ears checked and stop sleeping with your head under horses' a*ses.

Wake me up when you have something real to contribute and not a lot of words that mean nothing.

The validity of what I post is not measured by your ability to comprehend it. If it were, we'd still be typing about Janet and John.

Or of course, the truth could be you understand rightly, know you're skewered and so lash out with the personal attack because you don't have the decency to accept your own failings.

Stupidity, or cowardice. I'm easy whichever you admit to.

 

[the sceptic]

Just because you can't grasp their meaning, doesn't make them meaningless

There is no meaning.

The whole point of his existence on this forum is to point out that there is no legal proof that sky are doping. Well, congratulations detecive. I think most of us has figured that one out by now.

If you have no opinion on whether sky are doping or not, and will only have an opinion when there is proof, then what is even the point of showing up on a discussion forum to discuss.. nothing?

 

[Hawkwood]

There is no meaning.

The whole point of his existence on this forum is to point out that there is no legal proof that sky are doping. Well, congratulations detecive. I think most of us has figured that one out by now.

If you have no opinion on whether sky are doping or not, and will only have an opinion when there is proof, then what is even the point of showing up on a discussion forum to discuss.. nothing?

So you think we shouldn't have a three way debate, Sky is, Sky isn't, don't know need some proof?

 

[therhodeo]

So you think we shouldn't have a three way debate, Sky is, Sky isn't, don't know need some proof?

I think the more accurate debate would be Sky is, Sky isn't because they're not, Sky isn't because you have no proof that meets my arbitrary burden of proof.

 

[martinvickers]

I think the more accurate debate would be Sky is, Sky isn't because they're not, Sky isn't because you have no proof that meets my arbitrary burden of proof.

You may think that. But you'd be wrong.

Just so you know.

 

[Justinr]

However many, many times rather people saying they think Sky may be doping they say I know Sky are doping, that they are certain, that there is no need for proof, they can see it, they are certain.

The Hitch recently posted an over-long and typically bombastic post outlining why he knew Sky was doping and how he felt people that didn't agree were idiots.

Agree. And I think most of that post from Hitch was directed at me after I said "that's your opinion and not fact".