The Chris Squared Thread

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Nice strawman - as well as using it to do absolutely nothing.
Tiresome indeed.

 

[Boeing]

I have been harsh on RR in the past but now that I take the time to read his stuff in detail regardless if I agree with his stance I find him consistent and rarely posts with out supporting evidence behind his argument. Stand up guy if there is such a thing on the internet. His approach is always about attacking the process not the person. circumstances he presents tend to indict the person(s) but its not a personal attack. I am now wise to remember this before posting a reaction

respect

 

[silverrocket]

[... 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.

I think the weight of evidence favours expert analysis over both a child raised by wolves and a poster who believes it is "blindingly obvious" that Froome is doping.

 

[horsinabout]

I think the weight of evidence favours expert analysis over both a child raised by wolves and a poster who believes it is "blindingly obvious" that Froome is doping.

What, biased in house press reporters like Walsh doing Murdock's dirt work, or some commissioned so called expert to give their unbiased pseudoscientific opinion?. No, I tell you what - I will go with the innocent eyes of the child raised by wolves. It will be both beautifully intuitive and sweetly unbiased with an untainted agenda.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

I have been harsh on RR in the past but now that I take the time to read his stuff in detail regardless if I agree with his stance I find him consistent and rarely posts with out supporting evidence behind his argument. Stand up guy if there is such a thing on the internet. His approach is always about attacking the process not the person. circumstances he presents tend to indict the person(s) but its not a personal attack. I am now wise to remember this before posting a reaction

respect

100x (ten char)

 

[Netserk]

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

I respectfully disagree. IMO the best evidence we have are 1) biggest transformation ever seen in cycling (or at least very close to) and 2) Leinders.

Okay maybe Lienders is weaker than the climbing times, but the transformation is still the best evidence in my opinion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I respectfully disagree. IMO the best evidence we have are 1) biggest transformation ever seen in cycling (or at least very close to) and 2) Leinders.

Okay maybe Lienders is weaker than the climbing times, but the transformation is still the best evidence in my opinion.

Do I use his transformation to form an opinion? Sure.
Is it 'evidence'? Nope.
This is back to Hieros point of conjecture.

And - RR has not said that Froome/Sky are clean. But even if he did (like Walsh sortof has) - then firstly he is in a better position to come to their decision.

But guess what - I can disagree. Easy. And I dont automatically have to think they are part of some wild conspiracy, or that they are demented - they could just be wrong. And may even change or revise their opinions if actual 'evidence' comes to light.

 

[sniper]

Do I use his transformation to form an opinion? Sure.
Is it 'evidence'? Nope.
This is back to Hieros point of conjecture.

from wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

along that definition, if i'm not mistaken, the transformation is in fact evidence and so is leinders.

it's not proof of course, but luckily i haven'T heard anybody say it is.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

from wikipedia:

along that definition, if i'm not mistaken, the transformation is in fact evidence and so is leinders.

it's not proof of course, but luckily i haven'T heard anybody say it is.

You used wikipedia??
From me:
Ok - evidence or anything else, quoted from wikipedia is broadly speaking complete sh*te.


Lets use a dictionary?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

 

[sniper]

You used wikipedia??
From me:
Ok - evidence or anything else, quoted from wikipedia is broadly speaking complete sh*te.


Lets use a dictionary?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t

exactly. what i said in my post is that it depends on what definition of evidence you take. you'll agree.
if we take the second definition it's evidence.
if we take the 1st and 3rd it isn't.

 

[Benotti69]

I respectfully disagree. IMO the best evidence we have are 1) biggest transformation ever seen in cycling (or at least very close to) and 2) Leinders.

Okay maybe Lienders is weaker than the climbing times, but the transformation is still the best evidence in my opinion.

I dont see how Leinders is weak evidence. Guy is a doping doc. That was enough to satisfy people on here that Armstrong was doping due to working with Ferarri.

How do we know Leinders didn't hire a campervan from Dirk Hofman and hook up with Froome in the alps!

Armstrong boasting is what contributed to his downfall. Sky/Froome learnt the lessons of the past, to a point.

 

[sniper]

I dont see how Leinders is weak evidence. Guy is a doping doc. That was enough to satisfy people on here that Armstrong was doping due to working with Ferarri.

How do we know Leinders didn't hire a campervan from Dirk Hofman and hook up with Froome in the alps!

Armstrong boasting is what contributed to his downfall. Sky/Froome learnt the lessons of the past, to a point.

anybody who thinks Leinders is weak evidence should double check Franklin's posts on the matter in several threads, both in the dedicated Leinders thread as well as in the Rabobank thread i believe and in the Sky threads.
Franklin's posts on Leinders leave very little room for doubt (a) about how pivotal Leinders was at Rabobank and (b) that Brailsford knew exactly whom he was hiring, and it wasn't for saddle sores.

 

[Netserk]

I worded myself poorly. All I meant was that his climbing performances was better/stronger evidence than racing on a team that hired Leinders. It was not meant to say positive (in the grammatical sense), but comparative.

 

[red_flanders]

Nice strawman - as well as using it to do absolutely nothing.

Exactly my point. Do try and follow along, Doc.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Exactly my point. Do try and follow along, Doc.

Wow - add a deletion on doing anything, as well as a personal remark - from a mod?
No wonder this is troll heaven.

Im out.

 

[Scatto]

Like Cinderella's carriage, marginal gains have an expiration time. After July the Sky riders turn back into pumpkins.

This is how cycling works and what we have seen: a team is juicing up until a major goal, then onto the next and so on until they grab a price. Once you have it, you got more to lose.

I'm terribly sorry, but that's Evans 2013: he podiumed in the Giro, realized that would make a good 2013 and BMC didn't go further with the plan. That's Joaquim Rodriguez going for world champion. That's Sky falling after the Tour. Heck, it's Quick-Step/MAPEI underperforming year after year after the spring classics. The list is endless. They gamble a little bit, and lower stakes when they've won. Vinokourov was gone after LBL, only to come back for one last shot: the Olympic road race.

Anyway, you got the pattern. What Horner and Froome are taking is probably still GW1516 or an IGF-1 insuline / Encrelex variant and AICAR. Burning sugar and fat like there's no tomorrow and keeping hormonal levels steady. I'm no expert at all, but they've been talking about this for years so it may be now we have these thin guys celebrating. Also, the way Froome bonked in the Tour is about what you'd expect.

Lastly, did anyone visit the website of the Mostoles hotel? It's in an industrial park, it's a meeting center! Not the place you'd go to have a cozy night with your happy wife. I'm not saying he went there to avoid controls (why would he, after the last stage), but my cluedo skills suggest he just needed to speak with someone in private - not his wife, but someone else who deserved a big thanks when the win was secured. Get the security tapes - face recognition - Jack Bauer and you'll find the guy.

 

[hrotha]

Technically Leinders would be more akin to Del Moral, in that he wasn't Froome's personal doctor outside the team structure. It's more damning of Brailsford and Sky as a whole than of any individual rider - although naturally the assumption has to be that those riders performing at the most suspicious levels would be the ones benefitting the most from the implicit change of policy.

 

[sittingbison]

Same warning as the JV thread. Stop the circular insulting baiting pedantic nitpicking (again not specifically DrMas)

Its not about other posters. Enough of playing the man and clogging this and every other thread. Say your piece and move on. If you want to discuss what others say fine, but don't get accusatory or personal. And don't get pedantic with pseudo analyzing others posts in minutae when you know full well what they mean. It's tiresome boring trolling and derailing, and will be dealt with as such.

Bison

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Same warning as the JV thread. Stop the circular insulting baiting pedantic nitpicking (again not specifically DrMas)

Its not about other posters. Enough of playing the man and clogging this and every other thread. Say your piece and move on. If you want to discuss what others say fine, but don't get accusatory or personal. And don't get pedantic with pseudo analyzing others posts in minutae when you know full well what they mean. It's tiresome boring trolling and derailing, and will be dealt with as such.

Bison

Hold on now.

What happens when someone "says their piece' and their piece is erroneous or even a fabrication?
I have every right to query anyone - as they can do to me - its a public forum.

Nor is it a members place to assume someone is either right or wrong - and if wrong only doing so to troll.
In the same way you ask us to play post not poster (which is fine) then your role is to deal with posters, not posts.

 

[sittingbison]

The bolded is not ambiguous.

Warning delivered.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The bolded is not ambiguous.

Warning delivered.

Mod thread, please.

 

[the sceptic]

lets get this back on topic (or maybe slightly off topic)

Anyone else think next year will be like the wild EPO years? Seems logical that more and more riders will get access to the magic weight loss+increased power potion. And the UCI is of course unwilling/unable to do anything about it.

So we will get more donkeys turned into aliens, more non british riders getting close to EPO records, french riders and garmin in the autobus.

 

[The Hitch]

Technically Leinders would be more akin to Del Moral, in that he wasn't Froome's personal doctor outside the team structure. It's more damning of Brailsford and Sky as a whole than of any individual rider - although naturally the assumption has to be that those riders performing at the most suspicious levels would be the ones benefitting the most from the implicit change of policy.

Id say its most damning of Wiggins considering his previous strong stance against doping doctors, yet surprise surptise when he is the Tour de France contender earning $1 million, suddenly he doesn't find anything wrong with them at all.

Like everything else about Wiggins since 2009 it makes absolutely no sense if he is clean.

And if Wiggins isn't the 100% clean, never touched a drug in his life, beacon of morality and fair play that he claims to be, its near impossible to believe the biological miracle that has become the only other rider in recent history to pull off the 6 month peak.

 

[sittingbison]

If Leinders was the personal doc for either Sir Wiggo, Dawg, Little Richie or Dodger there would be trouble at mill. Employed team wide, making sure nobody glows in the dark from their own ingestions, is defensible if you are a spin doctor oops I mean PR merchant and believe your own BS Personally I give credence to Ashos observation... clutches of bad eggs in the basket. Explains how small numbers within a team are so superior to the rest, why deputy dog is always promised a win next year etc.

Wouldn't be surprised if Horner is a well reimbursed guinea pig testing out a new program for the heavy hitters within Radio Shack for next year. Watch the performance, check the results, see if he gets caught... explainable as a rogue old guy trying for a final pay check. Horner knows how to play that game, when to speak up or keep schtumm.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's tenuous, and 50% off-topic, but it seems to me that the original "big name" defenders of HWMNBN were Wiggins and Horner. Both of whom have subsequently had impressive victories / form increases.