The Chris Squared Thread

[thehog]

it's not a criminal trial. no. But it is a forum. With rules.

From said rules.



Or do the rules not apply to you?

In my opinion Froome and Sky are doping

 

[red_flanders]

Deleted...

 

[martinvickers]

In my opinion Froome and Sky are doping

Very well put, hog. Entirely within the spirit of the rules. Good man.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Please let me know when sky are going to sue the clinic, so I can hide in my bunker first.

But until then, this isnt a criminal trial, so its ok to have an opinion without it being backed up by direct proof.

It isn't a criminal trial - (thats a strawman) but it is a public forum.

And it certainly can lead to a legal setting if a poster defames or libels someone - indeed we saw this recently with this post from Daniel.

More to the point - if you have an argument or theory, then one should be delighted to educate or inform others on it by backing up their claims and people should query it- anything else imo is either bias or trolling statements.

 

[the sceptic]

it's not a criminal trial. no. But it is a forum. With rules.

From said rules.



Or do the rules not apply to you?

After watching sky over the last 2-3 years I have come to the conclusion that it is overwhelmingly more likely that they are doping than not. If I had to bet my house on it I would bet on doping.

Their transformation, comparing their results to other suspected dopers, past known dopers and past "clean" riders has made me pretty sure that I am right.

Good enough?

If I may ask, how do you (and others) come to the conclusion that sky are clean?

 

[martinvickers]

Sorry, outrageous climbing times and performances are evidence. Particularly when coming from riders who have never been near the outer limits of human performance previously.

Editorialising. Of no value. Sorry.

If you don't think that's evidence we strongly disagree. Then there are all the other things which have been discussed ad nauseum on the Sky and other threads which I won't rehash here.

To say there is no evidence and to deny that there is any, is in my view, incorrect. To put it nicely. I'll leave my points at that.

Keep putting it nicely, then. Civility isn't an added extra.

Edit: My apologies, Red. This comes across rather more harshly on screen than it did in my head. No offence intended, just a general comment meant in humour.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

there's the key.

1. Is it a fact, or just an opinion, impression.
2. what does that fact actually indicate, logically.

For example, Millions of children believe fervantly in the existance of Father Christmas. that's a statistical fact. It is NOT indicative of the proposition that he does in fact exist. Neither are the mince pies, shopfront santas, or the appearance at the foot of millions of childrens beds each christmas of a pile of plastic crap.

Or to put it bluntly, in this place there's a lot of people adding 2 to 2, insisiting it's 5 and getting pretty rude and condescending about those who want to look at their working out.

 

[martinvickers]

After watching sky over the last 2-3 years I have come to the conclusion that it is overwhelmingly more likely that they are doping than not. If I had to bet my house on it I would bet on doping.

Their transformation, comparing their results to other suspected dopers, past known dopers and past "clean" riders has made me pretty sure that I am right.

Good enough?

Fair enough. It's your opinion. as long as you own it as such, there's no problem, is there?

If I may ask, how do you (and others) come to the conclusion that sky are clean?

Mistake the first. I can't speak for others.

Mistake the second. You make an assumption on my views. It's not an entirely accurate one.

 

[gooner]

After watching sky over the last 2-3 years I have come to the conclusion that it is overwhelmingly more likely that they are doping than not. If I had to bet my house on it I would bet on doping.

Their transformation, comparing their results to other suspected dopers, past known dopers and past "clean" riders has made me pretty sure that I am right.

Good enough?

If I may ask, how do you (and others) come to the conclusion that sky are clean?

I don't think it's a conclusion that people are saying Sky are clean. It's more the opinion and how it's expressed with some trying to do it as a more factual meaning. We have even seen the suggestion that the evidence is the same now as it was with USPS back then. Not true and not certainly overwhelming as you say yourself.

 

[the sceptic]

I don't think it's a conclusion that people are saying Sky are clean. It's more the opinion and how it's expressed with some trying to do it as a more factual meaning. We have even seen the suggestion that the evidence is the same now as it was with USPS back then. Not true and not certainly overwhelming as you say yourself.

Well, I would assume that most people have come to a conclusion now on whether they think they are doping or not.

Obviously its impossible to be 100% certain one way or the other since its impossible to know the truth, but most people should feel pretty strongly one way or the other, otherwise why even bother caring if you are exactly 50/50 on whether they are doping or not?

I didnt mean the actual evidence is overwhelming, but in my opinion it is way more likely they are doping than not. I give doping a high likelyhood because I am way more inclined to believe that their transformation, climbing times etc etc comes from a doping program rather than Kerrison being a miracle worker, badzilla, everyone stopped doping etc etc.

Of course not everyone will view it the same way and thats fine by me, but I would be interested to know how someone comes to the conclusion it is more likely they are clean than not.

 

[The Hitch]

I have to correct you on this.

Walsh in his interview with Wiggins wrote clearly that he was a defender of Lance.

Walsh asked Wiggins, allowing him to explain himself. Wiggins (deleted by mod as inflammatory and unsupported) had only said one kind of ok thing about lance once, months before the 2009 tour.Walsh said nothing.
According to digger he only found out Wiggins was a lance fanboy a few hours earlier. Either way I can't imagine Jeremy paxman ever asking someone to explain what they meant when they said something without having what they actually said right in front of them, ready to call them out if they try to bull**** their way out of it.

I suppose you could say maybe he doesn't care if riders supported omerta or not.

But then during the tour he writes that it is the sky sceptics who were lance defenders. Which makes the way he let Wiggins off on it truly ridiculous

 

[thehog]

The biggest evidence for me was after Ax3 that the clinic broke down!

Never seen a rider, not even Lance break the Clinic.

That was impressive!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, I would assume that most people have come to a conclusion now on whether they think they are doping or not.

Obviously its impossible to be 100% certain one way or the other since its impossible to know the truth, but most people should feel pretty strongly one way or the other, otherwise why even bother caring if you are exactly 50/50 on whether they are doping or not?

I didnt mean the actual evidence is overwhelming, but in my opinion it is way more likely they are doping than not. I give doping a high likelyhood because I am way more inclined to believe that their transformation, climbing times etc etc comes from a doping program rather than Kerrison being a miracle worker, badzilla, everyone stopped doping etc etc.

Of course not everyone will view it the same way and thats fine by me, but I would be interested to know how someone comes to the conclusion it is more likely they are clean than not.

This is kind of the whole point.

I do not believe anyone is 100% either way - yet here recently that is exactly where people are put.

As an example - you even put in the strawman of "everyone stopped doping". That is patently false - no-one has ever said that, but it is often repeated here.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

the treatment is not epo! The treatment for Bilharzia is;

- Praziquantel – used to treat all forms of bilharzia. A single dose has been proven to be effective to contain the disease.
- Oxamniquine – for treating intestinal bilharzia in Africa and South America
- Metrifonate – for treating urinary bilharzia

Froome didn't suffer from Bilharzia for his whole career. So where was the promise as a junior, U23, then the dip due to bilharzia followed by the continuation of his talent after treatment? The thing is no one saw a GT winner and then boom the Skyborg arrived at Vuelta'11.

 

[thehog]

the treatment is not epo! The treatment for Bilharzia is;

- Praziquantel – used to treat all forms of bilharzia. A single dose has been proven to be effective to contain the disease.
- Oxamniquine – for treating intestinal bilharzia in Africa and South America
- Metrifonate – for treating urinary bilharzia

Froome didn't suffer from Bilharzia for his whole career. So where was the promise as a junior, U23, then the dip due to bilharzia followed by the continuation of his talent after treatment? The thing is no one saw a GT winner and then boom the Skyborg arrived at Vuelta'11.

“It’s not something that just disappears. It’s a parasite. It lays eggs. They might be dormant, then the eggs hatch, then they lay more eggs,” Brailsford said. “You have to stay on top of it, be vigilant, that’s why he keeps having treatments so it’s completely eradicated over time.”

 

[Benotti69]

“It’s not something that just disappears. It’s a parasite. It lays eggs. They might be dormant, then the eggs hatch, then they lay more eggs,” Brailsford said. “You have to stay on top of it, be vigilant, that’s why he keeps having treatments so it’s completely eradicated over time.”

treatment lasts the length of a GT career

Wonder have Sky been researching other blood diseases to unleash on the unsuspecting public for the next come from nowhere rider

 

[thehog]

treatment lasts the length of a GT career

Wonder have Sky been researching other blood diseases to unleash on the unsuspecting public for the next come from nowhere rider

I think it does. But they will keep on top of it and if any passport irregularities occur they'll be straight on to it with a course of Praziquantel

 

[The Hitch]

as far as the infraction i just got for saying wiggins lied, goes (because it is allegedly "inflammatory and unsupported"), even JV called Wiggins out for lying after after Wiggins gave an interview saying he always hated Lance and was sick watching him podium 2009 and JV pointed out angryily on twitter that they were bffs during the 2009 tour.

Wiggins entire story since 2012 contradicts directly what actually happen.
Here is an extract from his book

At the time I stuck to my line that Lance's return was a good thing for the sport,” the Briton admitted. “Without Lance's achievement in the Tour, Livestrong, his cancer charity, wouldn't have such a high profile and perhaps wouldn't be able to do the work it does. Without Lance, cycling mightn't be as popular – he made it cool in a way…

“I didn't know, of course, that eight or nine months down the line I was going to go toe-to-toe with him for a place on the podium in the Tour de France. With hindsight, I'm glad I never criticised him. I had to go and race with the guy and everyone around him. I know what Lance is like if you make an enemy of him. We've seen it in the past. He could have made my life very difficult.”

Wiggins claiming his support happened "eight or nine months" before the 2009 Tour when there are articles from years later where he heroworships lance.

And then trying to claim he was peer pressured into "not critisicising Lance", when he was leading the abuse against Landis and praising Lance at every opportunity through 2012 including on the Paris Nice podium and on the bbc during the olympics

Disgraceful behaviour from a liar and fraud. That is not an unsubstantiated allegation. Its clear for everyone to see.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

as far as the infraction i just got for saying wiggins lied, goes (because it is allegedly "inflammatory and unsupported"), even JV called Wiggins out for lying after after Wiggins gave an interview saying he always hated Lance and was sick watching him podium 2009 and JV pointed out angryily on twitter that they were bffs during the 2009 tour.

Wiggins entire story since 2012 contradicts directly what actually happen.
Here is an extract from his book


Wiggins claiming his support happened "eight or nine months" before the 2009 Tour when there are articles from years later where he heroworships lance.

And then trying to claim he was peer pressured into "not critisicising Lance", when he was leading the abuse against Landis and praising Lance at every opportunity through 2012 including on the Paris Nice podium and on the bbc during the olympics

Disgraceful behaviour from a liar and fraud. That is not an unsubstantiated allegation. Its clear for everyone to see.

Lol - thats crazy.

Whichever mod did that needs to reveal themselves and apologize.

I have yet to see the documentary called the 'Armstrong Lie' - so it may not be a lie, what kindof infraction do I get for saying that?

 

[thehog]

as far as the infraction i just got for saying wiggins lied, goes (because it is allegedly "inflammatory and unsupported"), even JV called Wiggins out for lying after after Wiggins gave an interview saying he always hated Lance and was sick watching him podium 2009 and JV pointed out angryily on twitter that they were bffs during the 2009 tour.

Wiggins entire story since 2012 contradicts directly what actually happen.
Here is an extract from his book


Wiggins claiming his support happened "eight or nine months" before the 2009 Tour when there are articles from years later where he heroworships lance.

And then trying to claim he was peer pressured into "not critisicising Lance", when he was leading the abuse against Landis and praising Lance at every opportunity through 2012 including on the Paris Nice podium and on the bbc during the olympics

Disgraceful behaviour from a liar and fraud. That is not an unsubstantiated allegation. Its clear for everyone to see.

I got an infraction for agreeing with you! Because you were OT! so my reply was just OTT'ing the OT.

But I do agree with you.

 

[the sceptic]

Lol - thats crazy.

Whichever mod did that needs to reveal themselves and apologize.

I have yet to see the documentary called the 'Armstrong Lie' - so it may not be a lie, what kindof infraction do I get for saying that?

Wild guess: the same mod that gave me an infraction for "inappropriate language" when I pointed out the irony of sky fans calling other people conspiracy theorists.

 

[thehog]

as far as the infraction i just got for saying wiggins lied, goes (because it is allegedly "inflammatory and unsupported"), even JV called Wiggins out for lying after after Wiggins gave an interview saying he always hated Lance and was sick watching him podium 2009 and JV pointed out angryily on twitter that they were bffs during the 2009 tour.

Wiggins entire story since 2012 contradicts directly what actually happen.
Here is an extract from his book


Wiggins claiming his support happened "eight or nine months" before the 2009 Tour when there are articles from years later where he heroworships lance.

And then trying to claim he was peer pressured into "not critisicising Lance", when he was leading the abuse against Landis and praising Lance at every opportunity through 2012 including on the Paris Nice podium and on the bbc during the olympics

Disgraceful behaviour from a liar and fraud. That is not an unsubstantiated allegation. Its clear for everyone to see.

Then he told Walsh the Landis comment was said as he stepped off the team bus at the Tour.

When in fact he'd said in Jan 2011 on a training camp.

and then off course Lance and never tested positive:

“I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”

“All the other stuff that’s come on with Landis and things like that is one for the courts and whether the truth will ever come out is down to this investigation. I think time will tell with that. As it stands today, with the time I’ve raced with him – and I’ve never raced with him in his era of winning seven Tours – but in his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested athlete and never failed a drugs test.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-calls-for-biological-passport-data-to-be-made-public

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wild guess: the same mod that gave me an infraction for "inappropriate language" when I pointed out the irony of sky fans calling other people conspiracy theorists.

I remember that post - and while I do not agree with your sentiments, I do not recall any "inappropriate language' in it.

 

[the sceptic]

Guercilena acknowledged that Horner’s victory “has raised infinite doubts and suspicions” but offered a qualified explanation for his startling performance at the Vuelta.

“Starting with the premise that I would never in my life put my hand in the fire for anyone, I think that Chris’ victory can be explained as follows,” Guercilena said. “Chris rode very little this year due to injury and a subsequent knee operation. Furthermore, his direct rivals – from Nibali to Rodriguez to Valverde – were clearly more worn out than him after a very long and wearying season.

“If you look close at the data, you’ll realise that the average level [of the race] was relatively low. I didn’t see incredible things.”

I havent looked close at the data but I agree. Nibali and Valverde were not at their best in the vuelta in my opinion.

 

[Rollthedice]

I havent looked close at the data but I agree. Nibali and Valverde were not at their best in the vuelta in my opinion.

Maybe. They both had their bad days. Horner didn't. At 42. Nibali and the others didn't give a rat's *** on Horner chances in the long run over three grueling weeks. They were wrong. Nibs hoped that Horner would finally crack on Angliru, that's why he kept attacking. What he didn't know though was that Horner's hemoglobin was miraculously on the rise. End of the story.

 

[hfer07]

Guercilena's "explanation" is quite obvious, having present that as a DS he simply won't make Horner's case much worse that it is already, and by reading between lines, he indirectly recognizes the potential damage that keeping him in the team can cause in the short term.

The fact that Guercilena has no problem keeping Jens & allowing Frank Schelck to return, while not hiring the recent Vuelta winner, with the excuse of "promoting the youngsters" speaks aloud how problematic the situation is for Horner.

He should simply retire