The Sidebar Thread

[RobbieCanuck]

Okay, Don Quixote . . ..

Wow what a master at intelligent riparte you are! What other absurd responses did you think up.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I deleted that post because it was off topic and ignored my warning in the thread to stay on topic. Why did you feel the need to post that in that thread even after my warning to stay on topic? And it's not like that post added anything to any discussion taking place.

What discussion? You have an obtuse understanding of what constitutes a discussion. There are two purposes of a discussion

1.To give, acquire or exchange information
2.To discuss information so people can reach a consensus about something.

Masking_Agent’s post where he says, "Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ? Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ? “ are not discussion. They are leading questions that assume Phelps is doping and being abetted by his doctor with no basis for saying so.

These questions would not be admissible in court because they are unfair. They assume the existence of facts that have not been proven and for which there is no reasonable belief.

Now if I seriously asked you Afrank, “How many times did you beat your wife (girlfriend, sig other) last week” and you had never beaten your wife would you not claim you were being defamed or maliciously maligned? Of course you would.

Now the first question Masking_Agent asked was “ Will he be back under the jurisdiction of IOC out of competition tests ?” was answered by Catwhoorg in Post #2 where s/he says, “He did his 6 months in the USADA registered testing pool, as the article states.So yes, as a registered athlete at the highest level, he is fair game for the USADA, the sports governing body (FINA?), and even the IOC (or WADA) to run OOC tests.He has to fill in his whereabouts.”
After this thread started the early posters were just scratching their heads.

Fuzzysunlop3 Post 6
what are people's general opinion on Phelps with regards to doping? are there any red flags in terms of suspicious doctors or associations?

What this post tells us there is no information out there regarding Phelps. And no one responded to Fuzzy’s post. But that doesn’t stop Masking_Agent from defaming him.

An then in post 7 Catwhoorg says,

Catwhoorg Post #7
Besides his DUI and the Water pipe/bong incident... I'm not aware of anything more than rumour and speculation. Swimming is/was rife with PED's, and yes there is/was an omerta. So as an winner, with a remarkable record over many years, people will speculate.


Then there are some posts that add nothing to the discussion, so by the time I post at post #12, I say shut it down, because the posting is senseless. You guys on the other hand by keeping this thread open clearly want to encourage further senseless posting, gossip, smear, and just plain stupid rhetoric. When it comes to class CN is classless.

 

[Ripper]

...

Actually, threads within nothing but empty speculation tend to fizzle out. The thread in question looks to be doing so and might have fizzled sooner had you not gotten so hot under the collar. Perhaps you should have asked MA some questions instead of getting so PO. Not everyone communicates clearly.

It does appear that the Phelps thread has an emotional trigger for you. You also keep on bringing up legal processes for something that is not a court room or even a mainstream communication medium.

 

[Afrank]

What discussion? You have an obtuse understanding of what constitutes a discussion. There are two purposes of a discussion

1.To give, acquire or exchange information
2.To discuss information so people can reach a consensus about something.

Masking_Agent’s post where he says, "Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ? Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ? “ are not discussion. They are leading questions that assume Phelps is doping and being abetted by his doctor with no basis for saying so.

These questions would not be admissible in court because they are unfair. They assume the existence of facts that have not been proven and for which there is no reasonable belief.

Now if I seriously asked you Afrank, “How many times did you beat your wife (girlfriend, sig other) last week” and you had never beaten your wife would you not claim you were being defamed or maliciously maligned? Of course you would.

No matter what was specifically stated in the OP, a discussion can easily be started on Phelps, if he ever doped, if he is now, and his coming out of retirement.

Also, the forum is not a court of law. And questions raised on the boards to not need to be the kind that would be acceptable in a court.

I really don't get how your wife beating example relates to this in anyway. The two are completely different things. Claiming someone beats their wife would fall under defamation, but it doesn't follow from that, that claiming someone has doped falls under that as well. Athletes are probably more then use to people thinking they doped, not liking them, and insulting them. Especially the big and successful athletes like Phelps. If Phelps read that thread, I'm betting he would think something like "Hmm, okay, whatever." And then move on with his day.

Now the first question Masking_Agent asked was “ Will he be back under the jurisdiction of IOC out of competition tests ?” was answered by Catwhoorg in Post #2 where s/he says, “He did his 6 months in the USADA registered testing pool, as the article states.So yes, as a registered athlete at the highest level, he is fair game for the USADA, the sports governing body (FINA?), and even the IOC (or WADA) to run OOC tests.He has to fill in his whereabouts.”
After this thread started the early posters were just scratching their heads.

Fuzzysunlop3 Post 6
what are people's general opinion on Phelps with regards to doping? are there any red flags in terms of suspicious doctors or associations?

What this post tells us there is no information out there regarding Phelps. And no one responded to Fuzzy’s post. But that doesn’t stop Masking_Agent from defaming him.

An then in post 7 Catwhoorg says,

Catwhoorg Post #7
Besides his DUI and the Water pipe/bong incident... I'm not aware of anything more than rumour and speculation. Swimming is/was rife with PED's, and yes there is/was an omerta. So as an winner, with a remarkable record over many years, people will speculate.


Then there are some posts that add nothing to the discussion, so by the time I post at post #12, I say shut it down, because the posting is senseless. You guys on the other hand by keeping this thread open clearly want to encourage further senseless posting, gossip, smear, and just plain stupid rhetoric. When it comes to class CN is classless.

Like Ripper says above and like I've said before in our discussion, if there really is nothing to discuss about a athlete and if they doped before, the thread will eventually fade off the front page. In the actual thread, you were the one that came in and were prolonging it's life. My comments in the thread were simply to bring up the points that posters are free to have whatever opinion they wish and a thread and discussion that does not go against any rules doesn't get shut down because one person doesn't like it.

 

[Benotti69]

There are pages of recent posts in the Sky thread that could be moved into here

 

[MarkvW]

Wow what a master at intelligent riparte you are! What other absurd responses did you think up.

It's "repartee."

 

[RobbieCanuck]

It's "repartee."

It's French, we are bilingual up here. Normally it would have an acute accent over the e but this keyboard doesn't have the accents.

However I now understand why my zingers are not very effective in English! You are correct. Nice repartee.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I really don't get how your wife beating example relates to this in anyway. .

That explains everything!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Is it just me or does, "Vickers" rhyme with "bickers"?

 

[the sceptic]

Is it just me or does, "Vickers" rhyme with "bickers"?

I dont think we should draw any conclusions until we have some further evidence. As of now, the case is pretty thin. I have my hunches, but they are nothing more than that.

Until there is some conclusive proof, I will remain on the fence, and I will be happy to call you out on your bull****.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I dont think we should draw any conclusions until we have some further evidence. As of now, the case is pretty thin. I have my hunches, but they are nothing more than that.

Until there is some conclusive proof, I will remain on the fence, and I will be happy to call you out on your bull****.

I've discussed this with people in private and the usual suspects would be wrong if they think they know my feelings on the matter.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Is it just me or does, "Vickers" rhyme with "bickers"?

What does "Canuck" rhyme with?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Sceptic can you troll a little less like saying contador will be the saviour of cycling and your constant brit bashing.

 

[thehog]

It's French, we are bilingual up here. Normally it would have an acute accent over the e but this keyboard doesn't have the accents.

However I now understand why my zingers are not very effective in English! You are correct. Nice repartee.

You can hold down the e to get it.. ė.

 

[thehog]

You can hold down the e to get it.. ė.

Good post Hog.

 

[thehog]

Good post Hog.

Good post Hog.

 

[thehog]

Good post Hog.

Good post Hog.

 

[Granville57]

Good post Hog.

Good post Hög.

Although I now see you're on sûmmèr vàcatíôñ.



(No offense meant to hrotha or Libertine)

 

[the sceptic]

why is it that posters who are normally rational have this huge blind spot when it comes to LA? It's like as soon as they enter the LA thread, they have to wear these reality distortion glasses that can only see everything as Lance being pure evil and the Andreus being the second coming of christ. No room for anything in between.

 

[thehog]

Re:

why is it that posters who are normally rational have this huge blind spot when it comes to LA? It's like as soon as they enter the LA thread, they have to wear these reality distortion glasses that can only see everything as Lance being pure evil and the Andreus being the second coming of christ. No room for anything in between.

Seeing the same with Greg LeMond. People just lose their critical thinking and logic balance.

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

why is it that posters who are normally rational have this huge blind spot when it comes to LA? It's like as soon as they enter the LA thread, they have to wear these reality distortion glasses that can only see everything as Lance being pure evil and the Andreus being the second coming of christ. No room for anything in between.

What's wrong about posters seeing LA as being an absolute D##K? Has he shown himself as being anything other than that? The Andreus and LeMond most certainly have faults but nothing when comparing with LA, and it's not all that surprising that posters would go after LA in the LA thread.

 

[King Boonen]

I am having a go at someone who clearly has a bias against sniper, and is interpreting his post in the most negative way possible.

No, I have no clear bias against sniper or anyone else for that matter. what I dislike is people casting aspersions against scientists with nothing to back it up or no checking of the evidence. In this case the podcast was right there, available for anyone to listen to, yet sniper chose not to bother listening to it but to post negatively about Jeroen Swart's character and question his integrity. That really irritates me.

As far as I can see there is no other way to interpret the post. Had sniper listened to the podcast, taken specific quotes and used these to say he felt Swart was biased I would have no problem with that. I might disagree with his interpretation, but I wouldn't question his right to that interpretation. That, however, was not the case. No counterpoint was offered to the thoughts, just an "if" at the start as if this is some get out of jail free clause. My personal view is that it is unacceptable to purposefully cast doubt upon someone's character without even having the decency to listen to what they have to say in the first place.

I also dislike silly little insults like questioning if English if my first language, I would have thought you were above that.

anyway, indeed, i'd say Kingboonen was a bit negative in the interpretation of that post.
I drew my impression from Jacques' excellent summary, but added a caveat. So yes, the "if" mattered.

As I've said above, I see no other way to interpret it given you have decided to cast negative aspersions against someones' character without even bothering to listen to what they said. Had you offered a counterpoint I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it. The only issue with that is the counterpoint is, basically, that the whole post was rubbish and nothing but an attempt to erode someones' credibility with absolutely nothing to back it up. Posts like that add nothing to the discussion and can only result in arguments.

 

[sniper]

What you're saying is a bit like "you can't criticize The Climb if you havent read it from a to z".
Which is nonsense, really. If you've read other pieces from Walsh on Froome/Sky, and if you read excerpts/summaries posted by others, you get a pretty solid idea of what's in the book, and you can form a decent opinion based on that.

Same with Swart in this case. I read other pieces of his, I read his twitter feed, and I read Jacques' summary. Enough to get a decent impression.



And I don't know how more carefully you wanted me to formulate that? 1. I asked people to confirm or discard my interpretation. 2. I made a caveat, admitting that I hadn't heard the podcast, clearly implying that although I have an impression it might be the wrong impression.

So yes, the "if" mattered. And my caveat mattered. And yes, your interpretation was too negative.
"cast negative aspersions against his character"? Gimme a friggin break here.
I;m genuinely wondering why he's displaying this defensive attitude wrt Froome and the 2007 data, taking everything personal, making asumptions for Froome that any independent person would not make (e.g. that the 2007 data are legit).
How else you want me to formulate that?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

So yes, the "if" mattered. And my caveat mattered. And yes, your interpretation was too negative.
"cast negative aspersions against his character"? Gimme a friggin break here.
I;m genuinely wondering why he's displaying this defensive attitude wrt Froome and the 2007 data, taking everything personal, making asumptions for Froome that any independent person would not make (e.g. that the 2007 data are legit).
How else you want me to formulate that?

Most scientists would take the 2007 data as legit until proven otherwise.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

What you're saying is a bit like "you can't criticize The Climb if you havent read it from a to z".
Which is nonsense, really. If you've read other pieces from Walsh on Froome/Sky, and if you read excerpts/summaries posted by others, you get a pretty solid idea of what's in the book, and you can form a decent opinion based on that.

Same with Swart in this case. I read other pieces of his, I read his twitter feed, and I read Jacques' summary. Enough to get a decent impression.

No, you directly referenced the podcast and made your assumptions with no references to anything else. How is anyone supposed to take into account other sources if you completely fail to mention any of them at all?

The Climb, specifically, is a Strawman argument. You did not need to buy the podcast and it would not take any significant time to listen to it. The two things are extremely different, however:

In general terms yes, I am saying you can't criticise something without reading/hearing/seeing it. I really struggle to understand how anyone could argue against that. You can criticise parts of something if you have only read parts or all of it if you had read all of it, but criticising something that is freely available to you and would take minimal time to listen too without doing so is ridiculous.

As for taking the opinions of other people and reading/listening to other works by the same author/reporter, that would include any biases from your secondary source including misquotes and things taken out of context as well as assuming their position remains the same on everything. All that is likely to do is show confirmation bias to whatever side you lean. It's a silly position to argue from however I wouldn't have had a problem with that if you had listed several other people's view, articles etc. or even hinted at them, but you didn't. The full post again:

Havent heard podcast yet.
is it fair to say Swart was defending Froome?
If so, you wonder why.
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

Literally nothing but the podcast is mentioned.

And I don't know how more carefully you wanted me to formulate that? 1. I asked people to confirm or discard my interpretation. 2. I made a caveat, admitting that I hadn't heard the podcast, clearly implying that although I have an impression it might be the wrong impression.

An impression of something you haven't even bothered to listen to. How exactly can you form an impression of something like that? It would be similar to me giving an opinion on the new Star Wars movie even though I haven't seen it.

How should you formulate it? Well maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't until you've taken the time to even listen to a tiny bit of the podcast?

So yes, the "if" mattered. And my caveat mattered. And yes, your interpretation was too negative.
"cast negative aspersions against his character"? Gimme a friggin break here.
I;m genuinely wondering why he's displaying this defensive attitude wrt Froome and the 2007 data, taking everything personal, making asumptions for Froome that any independent person would not make (e.g. that the 2007 data are legit).
How else you want me to formulate that?

Again, directly from your post (full post further up for clarity):

...
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

How is this taken as anything other than negative? You question whether he is independent and unbiased based on an assumption made on a podcast you haven't even listened to.

Genuinely wondering but failing to mention anything about that in the post? I'm genuinely wondering how you expect people to interpret things that aren't there?