The Chris Squared Thread

[Zam_Olyas]

Scott, you got to call your folks/homeboys/voters from the Bible belt, they need to pray so that you get to keep this GT win. The last time you guys get to keep was far too long ago

 

[hiero2]

A note of caution.

A lot of flak going up against RR's stance that Sky and Froome are clean - a lot of allegations/conjectures that today, Leinders/Froome is equivalent to yesterday Lance - Emma/the motorman/etc etc.

They aren't. Not the same. Maybe, someday, the conclusion will be the same - Froome = LA. But maybe not. The smoking gun for Lance was smoking. Today we're looking for the gun and haven't found the smoke, but suspect it might exist.

Be a little more respectful of differing opinions. You are sceptical? Good. I am truly and honestly glad. It was scepticism that eventually tripped LA. But be a little more respectful and honest to people who do not share your skepticism. At this point in time we NOTHING but conjecture, and that is VERY MUCH unlike what we had after Festina '98. We questioned the evidence then - but it WAS evidence. Today we do not have evidence. We have conjecture. Only. Please remember this - and respect those who disagree.

 

[hiero2]

We did, troll or no troll, please read 'the sceptic' again. You have written a lot of things, with buddy Neal Rogers and the Brits. Great conclusions also. Tailwind. Only when it mattered.

I can see people are keeping their tempers in control. More or less. Because of Lance, there is a very large inertia for the sceptical wave. Let's show a little more respect. "Tailwind. Only when it mattered." is a bit of an oversimplification. You can't capsulize what's going on in 5 words.

It's easy to say "read the sceptic again" -- it's hard to go look up the actual posts -- and link them. But linking them is what you should do.

Today is like 2002 - there is lots of disagreement about what is happening - lots of conjecture - not much in the way of hard proven facts - so

take a minute - prove your point.

 

[red_flanders]

We questioned the evidence then - but it WAS evidence. Today we do not have evidence. We have conjecture. Only. Please remember this - and respect those who disagree.

Climbing times which destroy every clean ascent and match that of known blood dopers is in fact, evidence. Just saying. Yeah, it's not overwhelming but it's evidence.

And to anyone watching the sport for long enough, it's blatantly obvious.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Today we do not have evidence. We have conjecture. Only. Please remember this - and respect those who disagree.

No, your opinion does not constitute fact. Don't confuse the two. The fact that people like Froome and Horner are shooting up the climbs at the same rate or faster than known dopers is sufficient to raise serious questions and cast the null hypothesis that both are clean into serious doubt.

The evidence may be circumstantial, but it's evidence that either the unlikely has occurred (with remarkable frequency, I might add) or that the null should be rejected.

 

[red_flanders]

Today is like 2002 - there is lots of disagreement about what is happening - lots of conjecture - not much in the way of hard proven facts - so

take a minute - prove your point.

Not to beat on this, but a LOT of people knew what was going on long before 2002. We were told things had changed, that a new clean champion had emerged, that the sport had cleaned up. Except nothing had changed and the performances were more ridiculous than before. Really only people who were willfully or otherwise ignorant (and I use that word in it's clinical sense) didn't know what was going on. It was obvious.

Now we have a situation when many are saying things have changed. And I do think some things have changed, but the system hasn't changed enough to matter. People can certainly, unquestionably get away with doping. While I think fewer riders are making that choice, they aren't winning GT's. Nothing exists to prevent those who want to dope from doing so, the governance is fully corrupt (no shortage of evidence there) and the performances are just as ridiculous as they were in 2002 (though I'm not sure why that year matters).

The fact is that knowledgable fans knew then what was up then, and we know what is up now. So do the riders. The "conjecture" was dead on then and it's dead on now.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Climbing times which destroy every clean ascent and match that of known blood dopers is in fact, evidence. Just saying. Yeah, it's not overwhelming but it's evidence.

Yes. Hiero2, with all due respect, the difference isn't conjecture vs evidence, it's evidence vs proof.

There is evidence. There is no proof.

 

[horsinabout]

A note of caution.

A lot of flak going up against RR's stance that Sky and Froome are clean - a lot of allegations/conjectures that today, Leinders/Froome is equivalent to yesterday Lance - Emma/the motorman/etc etc.

They aren't. Not the same. Maybe, someday, the conclusion will be the same - Froome = LA. But maybe not. The smoking gun for Lance was smoking. Today we're looking for the gun and haven't found the smoke, but suspect it might exist.

Be a little more respectful of differing opinions. You are sceptical? Good. I am truly and honestly glad. It was scepticism that eventually tripped LA. But be a little more respectful and honest to people who do not share your skepticism. At this point in time we NOTHING but conjecture, and that is VERY MUCH unlike what we had after Festina '98. We questioned the evidence then - but it WAS evidence. Today we do not have evidence. We have conjecture. Only. Please remember this - and respect those who disagree.

They aren't. Not the same. Maybe, someday, the conclusion will be the same - Froome = LA. But maybe not. The smoking gun for Lance was smoking. Today we're looking for the gun and haven't found the smoke, but suspect it might exist.

Interview with Froome on 2013 Tour win "Are you friends with Bradley Wiggins or is it an 'electric' rivalry? Jon Snow C4 News.

Be a little more respectful of differing opinions.

Like with the above quote, one big fat innuendo, like in comedy when you can take the rip out of someone, no respect there. Not in a free country, free?

You are sceptical? Good. I am truly and honestly glad. It was scepticism that eventually tripped LA. But be a little more respectful and honest to people who do not share your skepticism.

first part In bold - very naïve statement. Second part - honesty - yes, respect -No. Polite maybe!

At this point in time we NOTHING but conjecture, and that is VERY MUCH unlike what we had after Festina '98. We questioned the evidence then - but it WAS evidence. Today we do not have evidence. We have conjecture. Only. Please remember this - and respect those who disagree.

Don't need evidence as Froome is not on trial. Doping is not a criminal offence in the UK as far as I know, could be wrong, but don't think so, just against the rules of sport - haha there is another big joke. So to speculate evidence such as fast climbing times and going up Mont Ventoux as funny as coco the clown is valid. With disrespect I hopa hopa hopa.....

 

[horsinabout]

Yes. Hiero2, with all due respect, the difference isn't conjecture vs evidence, it's evidence vs proof.

There is evidence. There is no proof.

There is enough evidence to sink a ship, the titanic in fact. It's either circumstantial or hidden from view.

And of course because it is sport, comes only under the court of public opinion.

 

[MatParker117]

Climbing times which destroy every clean ascent and match that of known blood dopers is in fact, evidence. Just saying. Yeah, it's not overwhelming but it's evidence.

And to anyone watching the sport for long enough, it's blatantly obvious.

Dr Ross Tucker (Performance analyst from the University of Cape Town):

"The ability to sustain exceptional power outputs demands certain questions to be asked. And so the corollary to that is at soon as the athlete comes down and he shows signs that he isn't able to recover like a superhuman from one day to the next, those are reassuring signals.

"And so for me when we analyse the data, for example from Alpe d'Huez, we see for the first time in the race that Chris Froome is also below certain benchmarks from the past."

 

[JimmyFingers]

A note of caution.

A lot of flak going up against RR's stance that Sky and Froome are clean - a lot of allegations/conjectures that today, Leinders/Froome is equivalent to yesterday Lance - Emma/the motorman/etc etc.

They aren't. Not the same. Maybe, someday, the conclusion will be the same - Froome = LA. But maybe not. The smoking gun for Lance was smoking. Today we're looking for the gun and haven't found the smoke, but suspect it might exist.

Be a little more respectful of differing opinions. You are sceptical? Good. I am truly and honestly glad. It was scepticism that eventually tripped LA. But be a little more respectful and honest to people who do not share your skepticism. At this point in time we NOTHING but conjecture, and that is VERY MUCH unlike what we had after Festina '98. We questioned the evidence then - but it WAS evidence. Today we do not have evidence. We have conjecture. Only. Please remember this - and respect those who disagree.

As ever quality posting

 

[JimmyFingers]

No, your opinion does not constitute fact. Don't confuse the two. The fact that people like Froome and Horner are shooting up the climbs at the same rate or faster than known dopers is sufficient to raise serious questions and cast the null hypothesis that both are clean into serious doubt.

The evidence may be circumstantial, but it's evidence that either the unlikely has occurred (with remarkable frequency, I might add) or that the null should be rejected.

His main point was to be respectful

 

[Red Rick]

Scott, you got to call your folks/homeboys/voters from the Bible belt, they need to pray so that you get to keep this GT win. The last time you guys get to keep was far too long ago

That's hilarious

 

[Race Radio]

A note of caution.

A lot of flak going up against RR's stance that Sky and Froome are clean -

Of course I never said this. A banned troll and his buddies push this myth but it is not something I have written.

What I have written is that Froome's performances are very questionable. I gave very specific examples of which ones are the most questionable and why. I gave several links to very people who I consider experts who agree with this opinion.

Unfortunately several posters here are more focused with creating conflict and chose to twist what I write to fit to their agenda.

The best evidence we have against Froome etc. is focused on W/kg and climbing times

 

[sniper]

Of course I never said this. A banned troll and his buddies push this myth but it is not something I have written.

What I have written is that Froome's performances are very questionable. I gave very specific examples of which ones are the most questionable and why. I gave several links to very people who I consider experts who agree with this opinion.

Unfortunately several posters here are more focused with creating conflict and chose to twist what I write to fit to their agenda.

The best evidence we have against Froome etc. is focused on W/kg and climbing times.

+1

you've certainly never said sky are clean.

i too was rather surprised to hear hiero2 suggest that you had, especially after his repeated requests to other posters to back up everything they say.

 

[horsinabout]

Unfortunately several posters here are more focused with creating conflict and chose to twist what I write to fit to their agenda.

The best evidence we have against Froome etc. is focused on W/kg and climbing times. It is unfortunate that the best people for that type of discussion no longer post here because of the consent baiting, trolling and deliberate twisting of any discussion.

Well I don't have an agenda here and I never have. What I do have is my experience in the sport and this is what I have been about from the start - with absolutely no other agenda other than, in my small way, to do the checks and balances, not just because it is cycling, but because this is the right thing to do in life.

Hero2 above is very quick to say we should have respect for others opinions, but in a free society no, we have the right to disrespect an opinion or belief, and it is important to do so. We should however respect people who post with genuine intentions and not shoot the messenger with personal attacks. In my quest to post I have been baited and trolled within an inch of my existence here, and the above administrator has done nothing to stop it. I would have been gone from here a long time ago if it wasn't for my stubborn streak. I conclude, it is a funny mixed up world.

 

[hrotha]

Problem is there's been lot of abuse thrown at RR personally, and especially by one forumer.

 

[horsinabout]

Of course I never said this. A banned troll and his buddies push this myth but it is not something I have written.

What I have written is that Froome's performances are very questionable. I gave very specific examples of which ones are the most questionable and why. I gave several links to very people who I consider experts who agree with this opinion.

Unfortunately several posters here are more focused with creating conflict and chose to twist what I write to fit to their agenda.

The best evidence we have against Froome etc. is focused on W/kg and climbing times

Well I don't have an agenda here. What I do have is my experience in the sport - with absolutely no other agenda.
Hero2 above is very quick to say we should have respect for others opinions, but in a free society no, we have the right to disrespect an opinion or belief. We should however respect people who post with genuine intentions and not shoot the messenger with personal attacks. In my quest to post I have been baited and trolled within an inch of my existence here, and the above administrator has done nothing to stop it, save a single warning to sockpuppet insinuations, not the most damaging. I would have been gone from here a long time ago if it wasn't for my stubborn streak.
To RR, with all due respect to you and your posting. You do not need a raft of experts to know that Froome is doping, a child raised by a wolves would know it, because to is blindingly obvious.

 

[EnacheV]

You do not need a raft of experts to know that Froome is doping, a child raised by a wolves would know it, because to is blindingly obvious.

it's hard not to call personal attacks on "opinions" like this, 100% bull****

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+1

you've certainly never said sky are clean.

i too was rather surprised to hear hiero2 suggest that you had, especially after his repeated requests to other posters to back up everything they say.

No RR never said that - but in the constant babble by a few determined people here to distort things people say in to a black/white, yes or no - it is not difficult to see why Hiero may have mistaken the constant tripe that others put out about RR, as something that RR said.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well I don't have an agenda here. What I do have is my experience in the sport - with absolutely no other agenda.
Hero2 above is very quick to say we should have respect for others opinions, but in a free society no, we have the right to disrespect an opinion or belief. We should however respect people who post with genuine intentions and not shoot the messenger with personal attacks. In my quest to post I have been baited and trolled within an inch of my existence here, and the above administrator has done nothing to stop it, save a single warning to sockpuppet insinuations, not the most damaging. I would have been gone from here a long time ago if it wasn't for my stubborn streak.
To RR, with all due respect to you and your posting. You do not need a raft of experts to know that Froome is doping, a child raised by a wolves would know it, because to is blindingly obvious.

So, because you think Sky dope - RR must also think Sky dopes?
Is that how Freedom of Speech and opinion work? Good to know

 

[gooner]

Problem is there's been lot of abuse thrown at RR personally, and especially by one forumer.

Yeah, just that I think it's more down to 2 posters in particular with their constant tiresome jibes. In one ear out the other is what I say.

 

[red_flanders]

Can we get back to the topic and stop discussing who is doing what to whom? Tiresome. Besides, apparently all the good posters have left the site, so no point in closing the barn door now.

Let's just talk about why USADA isn't sending a greeting party to Bend.

 

[horsinabout]

it's hard not to call personal attacks on "opinions" like this, 100% bull****

Could you be more specific as to why what I have said is bull. Fire away!

 

[horsinabout]

So, because you think Sky dope - RR must also think Sky dopes?
Is that how Freedom of Speech and opinion work? Good to know

Counter intuitive. DM never lets us down in that department. A bit boring now.