None of my debate was about any team being clean or not, simply that doping discussion by and large, often falls down to a debate of liking or not liking riders/teams and the stick is doping or ethics not actually evidence. You even proved it with your failed attempt to make out Movistar were somehow without ADRVs as if it was a competition between Movistar & Ineos which is simply my point. There is no logic the debates are bias-driven and argued without evidence much of the time regardless of the state of online social forums.
It wasn't about making it a competition. It was about pointing out that Movistar are a team which has a perceived history - and due to its hiring practices, a not exactly unfair one - as a dirty team, but they don't have an upheld positive since 2007. Movistar have frequently been used as a comparison point to Sky throughout the last decade because of a couple of specific reasons. Firstly, that they were the team of one of the biggest rivals to Sky's dominance for the last decade, and secondly, that they are very much the poster boys for 'old' cycling. They're the oldest team in the péloton (continuous at the pro level since 1980 and longer at the amateur level), they are much more hands-off with regards control, the "don't ask no questions don't get told lies" approach to the darker side of the sport and the way they conduct themselves in the bunch has roots in the old days of deals and negotiations, which contrasted them very well with Sky as the all-singing, all-dancing team of new science and sanctimoniousness.
You continue it with your pedantry around it - I never claimed Movistar were without ADRVs, I said they didn't have an upheld positive since 2007, which is true because of Costa's suspension being quashed. And then you're like "they don't even have a doping violation to discuss" when there were positive tests - just that they were for controlled substances rather than banned substances so it was an AAF rather than an ADRV. You know this. You know people like Alessandro Petacchi got suspended for too much salbutamol, and you know that Froome got off on a technicality because his lawyers were better than Asthma-Jet's and that the likelihood that the AAF was produced by malfunctioning kidneys, dehydration and God knows what else postulated on the day when he happened to
gain all the lost time back in the Vuelta is slimmer than Janež Brajkovič on hunger strike, but because they could prove that it wasn't
certain that it had to be there by foul means, they couldn't suspend him. You know this.
You also know there's more to doping than positive tests. After all, Sky have had one doctor banned for life, and another struck off. They've had Josh Edmondson admit to violating rules and internal controls, and with Brailsford's connection to British Cycling there's also his direct link to other happenings like Rob Hayles' failing the 50% hematocrit test and Lizzie Deignan getting a secret suspension and then having it overturned. There's been a huge amount of deceit and lies surrounding the team for a decade, but they've masterfully filibustered most attempts to prise information out of them, which has kept the stories about them in the news for much longer, extending the threads further.
You know this, and still you're derailing the thread that you're complaining isn't long enough to talk about how everybody
else is biased, when you're coming in here demonstrating the exact same BS that is why the Sky threads got to be so big in the first place: endless pedantry and deflection tinged with a bit of smug triumphalism in order to stir the pot and ensure conversation continues but does not progress.
You know this too. You'll just claim you don't in order to elicit further responses, so that you can pad out the post count, wait until the thread has moved on a bit, then jump in to say the same things again, claim the Clinic is obsessed with Sky, call people biased, and do it all again.
"None of my debate was about any team being clean or not" - pull the other one.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram