- Jun 16, 2010
- 1,458
- 0
- 10,480
MarkvW said:Okay, Don Quixote . . ..
Wow what a master at intelligent riparte you are! What other absurd responses did you think up.
MarkvW said:Okay, Don Quixote . . ..
Afrank said: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.
RobbieCanuck said:
RobbieCanuck said: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.
RobbieCanuck said:Wow what a master at intelligent riparte you are! What other absurd responses did you think up.
MarkvW said:It's "repartee."
Afrank said:I really don't get how your wife beating example relates to this in anyway. .
Dear Wiggo said:Is it just me or does, "Vickers" rhyme with "bickers"?
the sceptic said: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 said:Is it just me or does, "Vickers" rhyme with "bickers"?
RobbieCanuck said: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.
thehog said:Good post Hog.
the sceptic said: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.the sceptic said: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.
Dear Wiggo said: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.
sniper said: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.
sniper said: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?
sniper said: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.
sniper said: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.
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?
sniper said:...
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.