samhocking said:
red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
I was wondering, if the mountain of evidence is all here in the Clinic now, then there's only a tiny little bit missing I assume?
Anyone know where we can find this little bit of evidence to complete our mountain and take these suckers down?
We're not looking for a big doping positive or anything like that, the mountain of evidence is already overwhelming enough to know were right, we just need a little bit more and the mountain is complete and someone else can take over Sky's licence for 2016 from Pro Continental, which would be a lovely thing. I would love to see Androni-Sidermec in Pro Tour for 2016. They only test positive once a year, they seem pretty harmless to me.
Another logical fallacy which assumes those in power have it in their interests to take Sky and Froome down, and there isn't in fact an overwhelming incentive for the system to hide and cover up what's happening.
You're the one trying to use logic though? You're sayying there is a 'mountain of evidence'. That does suggest you have most of what is required to prove they are doping does it not? It's a pretty big statement. I mean a lawyer presented with a mountain of evidence would probably take you up on a no-win-no-fee basis given this mountain.
What i'm saying, is what other piece of evidence do you need to complete the puzzle to make me believe the mountain of evidence you claim to have can be used as as proof? As far as I can tell it's not a mountain because if Sky tested positive tomorrow, it would prove nothing of the evidence in that mountain would it? Even that positive wouldn't be the missing piece of your mountain, because testing positive is not simply another piece of evidence that you claim to not have.
So once again, "proof" is not "required" here. This is a cycling forum, not a court, and not where the UCI determines guilt. At what point will this concept register?
You seem to be using this inaccurate and misleading language to suggest there isn't a mountain of evidence. Well "mountain" is my term and is certainly wholly subjective. I don't expect you to agree with it or use it. Beyond that, there is certainly, in my view and in plenty of other people's view, more than enough evidence to convince us beyond a doubt what has happened with Froome and Wiggins and Sky in general.
Since it's been discussed over and over and over and you still have your view, I'm not sure what the point is of listing it all out for you, though I agree a single resource which succinctly makes the arguments is a much needed resource. I'm not aware of it and don't have time right now to reconstruct it or distill it for someone who seems to need to believe in Sky. Sometime soon maybe. But you can certainly see all my posts on the Sky/Froome topics, or simply read those threads. They contain all of it.
I will admit to general confusion about your statements. You say there is evidence I "claim not to have". No idea what that means in the context of this discussion...or otherwise. I have no idea what you would need to be convinced. I assume the metric for you is a positive test. Great. Enjoy. I'm interested in what is, not what the organization has already proven. The UCI has been proven to be corrupt, has been proven to suppress positive tests, and is closely aligned with the current financial interests of the team winning the biggest race. So you'll forgive me if I don't put any stock in "no positive test" as some kind of useful litmus test as to whether I know if someone is doping or not.