The Chris Squared Thread

[red_flanders]

Wiggins in 2010 wasnt the same ITTer that he is now. Froome was pretty close to Geraint Thomas there, that was probably his ITT level before the transformation. Pretty decent, might get a top 10 here and there when the stars align.

In other words, good enough to make a Pro Tour team, but not good enough (given very average climbing ability) to be a top domestique and certainly not good enough to be a team leader.

Then in the course of a few weeks he transforms into the best climber in the peloton (by a good margin) and one of the top 3 TT'ers in the world.

Right. Totally normal. In my view anyone not seriously questioning him has to examine if they're being willfully blind to such a preposterous transformation.

 

[veganrob]

1-800-doo-lick

 

[hiero2]

In other words, good enough to make a Pro Tour team, but not good enough (given very average climbing ability) to be a top domestique and certainly not good enough to be a team leader.

Then in the course of a few weeks he transforms into the best climber in the peloton (by a good margin) and one of the top 3 TT'ers in the world.

Right. Totally normal. In my view anyone not seriously questioning him has to examine if they're being willfully blind to such a preposterous transformation.

Ah, yes, but there you have it -

seriously questioning him . . .

. There is a difference between seriously questioning - and saying it is a fact, no?

 

[red_flanders]

Ah, yes, but there you have it - . There is a difference between seriously questioning - and saying it is a fact, no?

Sure. However I don't need a positive test to feel sure about what I'm seeing. But even people who are/were big Sky or Froome fans have to be seriously questioning what they're seeing, right? It wouldn't be reasonable to see what has happened and just accept it because there's no positive test, right?

 

[Parker]

Sure. However I don't need a positive test to feel sure about what I'm seeing. But even people who are/were big Sky or Froome fans have to be seriously questioning what they're seeing, right? It wouldn't be reasonable to see what has happened and just accept it because there's no positive test, right?

Sure people question. But when you and many others on this forum question, the answer is unwaveringly the same - that they are doping. That's not questioning.

There are riders you haven't heard of yet who, in five years time, you will question. I don't know who they are either, but I am sure you will conclude they are all doping.

 

[Alpechraxler]

I think the gap performance wise between being sick with a disease that even can cause anemia and the bad effects of training too hard with such a disease and on the other side being healthy and able to train proper is highly visible. Its just the margin that was huge. If he became Tour/Giro/Vuelta top 10 material for 1 or 2 years and would have won by the next year noone would ask that many questions.


I can somehow rely to froome. I once was low on iron. I trained with low stores and a borderline low HB for a male(12g/L) and it just felt hard. I got a iron infusion and a week later i felt better 2 weeks later i felt really strong and beat some of my personal records on my training loops.

 

[Arrowfarm]

I think the gap performance wise between being sick with a disease that even can cause anemia and the bad effects of training too hard with such a disease and on the other side being healthy and able to train proper is highly visible. Its just the margin that was huge. If he became Tour/Giro/Vuelta top 10 material for 1 or 2 years and would have won by the next year noone would ask that many questions.


I can somehow rely to froome. I once was low on iron. I trained with low stores and a borderline low HB for a male(12g/L) and it just felt hard. I got a iron infusion and a week later i felt better 2 weeks later i felt really strong and beat some of my personal records on my training loops.

Yeah. I once had a cold and I couldn't train as hard, but when I got over it, I suddenly could, so I can relate to Vroome as well...

Badzilla is a poor excuse for being packfodder for the first 2/3 of his career (or the first 1/3 if we're to belive the other Chris of this thread).

 

[Alpechraxler]

I think badzilla can't be an excuse for everything but it could for example after its treatment lead to a much better recovery. Now combine that with the ability to do more quality training than before. For sure your performance becomes better. I don't believe Froome is clean but i neighter i believe his transformation was pure magic.

 

[red_flanders]

Sure people question. But when you and many others on this forum question, the answer is unwaveringly the same - that they are doping. That's not questioning.

There are riders you haven't heard of yet who, in five years time, you will question. I don't know who they are either, but I am sure you will conclude they are all doping.

I don't think everyone I'd doping. I think Froome is, because of the particulars of his career. That does not apply to anyone else, least of all unnamed future riders.

Saying I (or the unnamed "others") think everyone is doping simply is not true. As for Froome, for me the question has been answered. You may disagree but saying I think everyone dopes because I think Froome dopes doesn't bolster your case.

 

[frenchfry]

Sure people question. But when you and many others on this forum question, the answer is unwaveringly the same - that they are doping. That's not questioning.

There are riders you haven't heard of yet who, in five years time, you will question. I don't know who they are either, but I am sure you will conclude they are all doping.

And then when the naysayers are proven right, some of the believers say "in hindsight, it was so obvious"

 

[Parker]

And then when the naysayers are proven right, some of the believers say "in hindsight, it was so obvious"

And what about when they're not proven right? Nothing that can't be explained away by another layer of conspiracy.

 

[Netserk]

And what about when they're not proven right? Nothing that can't be explained away by another layer of conspiracy.

Example? .

 

[Parker]

I don't think everyone I'd doping. I think Froome is, because of the particulars of his career. That does not apply to anyone else, least of all unnamed future riders.

Saying I (or the unnamed "others") think everyone is doping simply is not true. As for Froome, for me the question has been answered. You may disagree but saying I think everyone dopes because I think Froome dopes doesn't bolster your case.

I think you'll struggle to find a single post you have made where you have kept an open mind or just said 'we just don't know'. Which would be the genuinely honest option.

However, I could show you your blanket suspicion of anyone who gets a thread about them - often with phrases such as 'I don't need evidence to know they're doping' - and the dismissal of any testimony which challenges your opinions (such as Walsh).

You're a doping fanatic. You yearn for doping scandals. That's fine, it takes all sorts. But don't try and pretend that you are some open-minded seeker of the truth.

 

[Parker]

Example? .

The general idea of widespread UCI protection of many riders who have inconveniently failed to test poitive for you.

David Walsh reporting he believes in Sky is some sort of News Interantional plot for which he has sold his soul for a paycheck.

 

[hrotha]

That stuff is well documented to have already happened in the recent past, so calling those who believe it could be happening again "conspiracy theorists" just goes to show that either you're trying to pick a fight, or you're completely clueless.

 

[red_flanders]

I think you'll struggle to find a single post you have made where you have kept an open mind or just said 'we just don't know'. Which would be the genuinely honest option.

However, I could show you your blanket suspicion of anyone who gets a thread about them - often with phrases such as 'I don't need evidence to know they're doping' - and the dismissal of any testimony which challenges your opinions (such as Walsh).

You're a doping fanatic. You yearn for doping scandals. That's fine, it takes all sorts. But don't try and pretend that you are some open-minded seeker of the truth.

I'll be interested to see you produce the statement you have attributed to me in quotes, or anything remotely like it. Should be simple as it happens "often", apparently.

It's disappointing and telling that you feel the need to make it personal and simply make things up.

 

[red_flanders]

I think you'll struggle to find a single post you have made where you have kept an open mind or just said 'we just don't know'. Which would be the genuinely honest option.

However, I could show you your blanket suspicion of anyone who gets a thread about them - often with phrases such as 'I don't need evidence to know they're doping' - and the dismissal of any testimony which challenges your opinions (such as Walsh).

You're a doping fanatic. You yearn for doping scandals. That's fine, it takes all sorts. But don't try and pretend that you are some open-minded seeker of the truth.

I'll be interested to see you produce the statement you have attributed to me in quotes. Should be simple as it happens "often", apparently. Maybe you just misunderstand the difference between "evidence" and a positive test. There is plenty of "evidence" even when a positive hasn't occurred, though there may not be proof.

It's disappointing and telling that you feel the need to make it personal and simply make things up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll be interested to see you produce the statement you have attributed to me in quotes. Should be simple as it happens "often", apparently. Maybe you just misunderstand the difference between "evidence" and a positive test. There is plenty of "evidence" even when a positive hasn't occurred, though there may not be proof.

It's disappointing and telling that you feel the need to make it personal and simply make things up.

You started it when you wrote this earlier:

I'm not sure anyone disagrees that there was more smoke around Armstrong. Seems clear, obvious and beyond contention to me.

The question for many fans, is how much smoke do you need to see before you realize someone has lit a fire? Seems pretty clear to a lot of people that there's a three alarm fire raging there. Doesn't need to be a 5 alarm before we think someone should send the fire dept.

If you have this view, you naturally wonder why others don't see it and wonder why they go after people like Armstrong and Horner with such intense an sustained vigor, and make excuses for (or ignore, or simply not address) what seems obvious about Froome.

I noted that was a swipe at RR, which you objected to - that exchange was deleted by our glorious mods, while leaving the baiting and personal part of your post there, smart move.

So, now is your opportunity to name the 'others' you allude to in the above post.

 

[the sceptic]

That stuff is well documented to have already happened in the recent past, so calling those who believe it could be happening again "conspiracy theorists" just goes to show that either you're trying to pick a fight, or you're completely clueless.

I love when sky fans turn to the "conspiracy theory" defence, while at the same time doing their best to believe the sky miracle.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not sure anyone disagrees that there was more smoke around Armstrong. Seems clear, obvious and beyond contention to me.

The question for many fans, is how much smoke do you need to see before you realize someone has lit a fire? Seems pretty clear to a lot of people that there's a three alarm fire raging there. Doesn't need to be a 5 alarm before we think someone should send the fire dept.

If you have this view, you naturally wonder why others don't see it and wonder why they go after people like Armstrong and Horner with such intense an sustained vigor, and make excuses for (or ignore, or simply not address) what seems obvious about Froome.

This post has been left here a few days, so i assume it is ok to query, who are these "others"?

 

[hiero2]

. . .the difference between "evidence" and a positive test. There is plenty of "evidence" even when a positive hasn't occurred, though there may not be proof.
. . .

Which is a good point. But, you have to admit that both sides have good points, and we have no definitive answer either way. There is, as yet, no proof. We DO have a number of prominent posters who believe Walsh is lying, and Brailsford. We DO, in this forum, have a lack of counterbalancing opinion in their favor, even though they are "convicted" on circumstantial "evidence".

Ok - so you (plural, multiple you, not personal to Red here) are convinced Froome doped. No problem. It isn't fact yet. You are convinced Walsh lied, Brailsford lied, etc etc etc. Ok, no problem. It isn't fact yet.

So - just a request that we all self-moderate a little, and remember that, at this point, what will be seen as the truth in five years is not yet known.

And that goes equally for both sides. Yes, there are a lot of people who have already gone through the "Walsh is lying - Brailsford is lying - Froome is doping " arguments here, and a great many here have made up their minds. Yes, they make up part of "our" community. Reminding them that those viewpoints have visible weaknesses is, more than likely, unproductive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To the mod that is deleting my posts - am I allowed respond to the original post or not?

 

[martinvickers]

I'll be interested to see you produce the statement you have attributed to me in quotes.

erm...

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1359413&postcount=723

How Parker put it

However, I could show you your blanket suspicion of anyone who gets a thread about them - often with phrases such as 'I don't need evidence to know they're doping' - and the dismissal of any testimony which challenges your opinions (such as Walsh).

You in the linked thread

Sure. However I don't need a positive test to feel sure about what I'm seeing. But even people who are/were big Sky or Froome fans have to be seriously questioning what they're seeing, right? It wouldn't be reasonable to see what has happened and just accept it because there's no positive test, right?

That's a distinction without a difference.

Should be simple as it happens "often", apparently. Maybe you just misunderstand the difference between "evidence" and a positive test. There is plenty of "evidence" even when a positive hasn't occurred, though there may not be proof.

It's disappointing and telling that you feel the need to make it personal and simply make things up.

Maybe YOU misunderstand what evidence is. Is a positive test the only kind of evidence? Of course not. There's photos of needle marks, eye witness testimony, properly conducted scientific analysis, bugged phone calls, emails and letters with admissions contained within, etc, etc, etc.

But your opinion on what you see isn't evidence. Of any kind. At all. It's just opinion.

And your disbelief of a palmares, isn't evidence. Of any kind. At all. It's just your belief.

 

[Netserk]

Climbing times are evidence though.

 

[martinvickers]

And that goes equally for both sides. Yes, there are a lot of people who have already gone through the "Walsh is lying - Brailsford is lying - Froome is doping " arguments here, and a great many here have made up their minds. Yes, they make up part of "our" community. Reminding them that those viewpoints have visible weaknesses is, more than likely, unproductive.

The problem with that is, you can't legitimately shut down people repeatedly reminding posters of the weaknesses of their arguments, unless you are equally willing to shut down people repeatedly making the argument in the first place!

Why should someone stop repeating that an argument is flawed, if the first person is allowed to continue to repeat the flawed argument?

Or basically, poster A can make an unevidenced claim re, for example, Walsh (despite the rules of the board, i might add!!) as often as they like, but poster B can only state that it is unevidenced once? That's fair? that;s productive? That's just a licence for the original poster to drown out the argument by volume.