Re: Re:
Johnny told me to do it - I didn't know.............
3rd grader excuse for how it all went wrong
acoggan said:
I haven't a clue why you're directing your question at me. I was asked by Laura Weislo to comment on Froome's physiology, and did so under the assumption that the data as presented are correct. Indeed, given that I have no more access to the raw numbers, etc., than anyone else here (and much less stomach for conspiracy theories), that's all I really could do.
By your response you proved my point. Science should be fact based. Sadly this is a sport when many participants view deception of the public as first nature. Given the pressure relating to this "proof" the very first thing to do was to determine the provenance of the document before any analysis. And without a second thought, you abrogated that responsibility to Laura by "presumption" not even asking her ? what steps she had taken to verify it and in reality, you should have taken on board that responsibility as part of the task - being the hired in expert.
Instead Froome, Cound & Brailsford, exactly like Lance before them and so many others know they don't have to get up early in the morning to pull the wool, regardless of whether they do or don't have to in this instance. They know psychology and how to play people, well Lance did until he came back for an 8th bite at the cherry. Give someone a chance to get 15 minutes of fame and normal caution and sense has gone out of the window. It works nearly every time.
We are in the 21st century. Just how difficult is it to receive a document and fire off an email to the lab and wait 24 hours for confirmation ? It is dead easy and yet no-one, absolutely no one in the long chain of people so desperate to get their opinion on the facts regarding this fax, does it.
I cannot understand why, but could see that esquire might "s e x " up the copy with highlighting and boldening of text. But I would say, 7 years lost and then found by someone with so much vested interest - the stakes are so great - I would not put it past several at the lab being bought, this is professional cycling after all. I don't care about esquire doing their stuff, I do care about the document that was sent to them, esquire just proved how easy it is to fake it, what about the version sent to them ? Without verification it is worth nothing.
Right now, what is the value to Mr and Mrs Froome of a "no" being a "Yes - it came from here" ? Several people could well gain more than a couple of year's salary at a stroke. The Verification process should be to the max. instead what do we get ? The same old cycling story. Lance is clean, Tyler had a phantom twin - the scientist says so. No, the scientist who - and there is no easy way to say this - you left yourself wide open with your casualness and last response - the scientist who is so keen on getting a slice of the action they leave their brain at home, says so.
Take a step back. Have a couple of days break and then come back at it. One test in 2007 and some tests in 2015. "Froome is clean" is a conclusion that is mutually exclusive to this data set, even if the provenance can be proved - and that is still a some way off. This is professional cycling.
I know you are not going to like what I wrote - but give it six months.