wrinklyvet said:
sniper said:
Wrinkly straddling the border between extreme gullibility and intellectual dishonesty.
If you can be bothered search The Climb for the key word "wind tunnel" and tell me why G hasn't been in one since 2007. Or why Froome hadn't been in one pre-2012(13?)..................
Lets get this right, I am not up for being called intellectually dishonest, however you dress it up.
......
I am not up for further discussion on this simple issue - please feel free of course, but I am not coming back on it. Accusing somebody of
verging on intellectual honesty is the last bastion of
the man who does not want to acknowledge another's view.
Sniper did acknowledge the view expressed in your posts, as so many others who read your posts can also do. Those posts trip between attempting to appear extremely gullible, based on this being professional cycling and all that entails, and genuinely avoiding connecting hard facts together.
When the blood passport came out G was right up there with a bunch of guys who have since been popped. Fact. Take yourself back to the time Pantani and the rest had been popped and Lance's fans were trying to tell us around 2002 2003 that he was the only guy riding clean. It is that level of intellectual incontinence that earns ridicule. Move the spotlight to recent events at BC. Millar doped in 2003 to win, and had his medal taken off him. Fact. But was "clean" when he was 2nd against a field, rich in dopers, by just a handful of seconds. He keeps his medal because he has been "honest" and told us everything about his doping, and he now is selected by Sutton to counsel youngsters on the perils of doping. Some (i) cretins will believe he is being honest, saying he could beat all those dopers by riding clean, others (ii) will know he is lying and feign gullibility, whilst being intellectually dishonest and then there are many who post here (iii) who joined the dots just as we did with Armstrong before and recognise BS when we see it.
The cold eye of the intelligent observer, with no vested interest in cycling might conclude, that the only thing Sky have really gone to town on, and applied "marginal gains" beyond their competitors, is in ensuring their riders are the most informed and most well supported athletes in the peloton on how to avoid tripping the low grade intelligence test and so not return any positives.
The "new clean generation" have produced as many positives in the sport as ever their predecessors did and with motor doping eventually (what 6 to 16 years after it entered the peloton ?) now being outed, only a moron would think that this is a sport where corruption is not part of the DNA of any long term participants.
I am sure such there is an audience for the kind of intellectually, dyslexic posts that Sniper criticises, but if you post them on this this forum you can expect them to be criticised.
Oh and by the way - play the ball not the man and intellectual
DIShonesty was the accusation rightly made of the posts you put up.