Franklin said:
Let's snip the summation of facts. You miss the wattage hooplah of Rogers, but all in all, a good summation.
I'm sorry, but you need to read up on the case. The doctor played a pivotal role.
Never said he didn't. What i said was, Millar was arrested for Doping offences. Whether a doctor was involved was irrelevant to the fact he was arrested for doping offences. My point is simply that Brailsford's presence in no way links him to Millar's doctor. It's happenstance.
Again, this is unbelievable. A doctor has to watch the most important assets, namely the riders. Not just some riders, his best squad. The notion that there was no background check is flatout ridiculous.
You may find it both unbelievable and ridiculous; neither of those feelings has any evidential value. This is just assumption loaded onto assumption. It's a basis for discussiong hypotheticals; it's no basis for finding what actually happened in this situation.
On the one hand we have DB who saw a very sad thing with David Millar and who is by all measures the most organized and thorough manager in cycling.
He is now. i'm not sure the same could be said then.
But to hire this pivotal role he relies on someone with no medical experience, does not do a background check (and trust me, he will have known him as Leinders was part of the MT of Rabo, it's a small world).
This is quite simply extremely farfetched.
Again with your feelings. I'm not saying you're not being honest about them, and I'm not saying they might not have merit. but of themselves, they don't prove anything, they aren't any basis for finding out anything. do you see the point i'm trying to make?
Really, how big was the risk he took with that offer? Chances of the board firing him were zero. And that is not speculation, simply an observation of his standing in British cycling and Sky in particular. The public would have howled if they had fired him. Btw, it would have wrecked Wiggins TdF win, so if true it was an extremely selfish action.
Well, I did ask for speculation, so i can't be annoyed that's what I got! Short of a fly in the wall, we're guessing. My guess? They believe Brailsford. Simple as. But sure, it's only guessing.
Categorically wrong though. You don't post facts, you post hearsay out of the subjects mouth as gospel.
On the other hand I point to things that verifyable have happened. The difference is immense.
I'm sorry, this is poppycock. Please set out exactly what the 'hearsay' statements are - I've shown pretty clearly much of what you've written are asumptions and personal feelings, not facts. But let's see the hearay - p.s. go wikipedia what hearsay actually is first - it's not just reportage...
And to drive this nail straight home. I never said I'm sure they dope, I hold good hope they don't. Another strawman which needs to be burned down.
I hold the logical point, namely critical. Yours is once again based on faith that what is told is true. The gulf between those approaches is immense.
Franklin. Please don't take this the wrong way. Is English your second language? In the heat of debate I feel this has probably got a little muddled. Would you clarify it please, because it makes so sense to me as written - and i say that as someone who is embarressed at my own lack of language skills, undoubtedly worse than yours.
Based on a lack of positives? you realize that there are almost never positives? Only Landis was stupid enough to be caught. Even Rasmussen was negative during 2008!
Of course i do - I'm simply saying catching rasmussen, albeit in a lie; pinging Landis within DAYS of the tour. Pinging Contador who was THE GC star of the peleton, and slippery as an eel (see Puerto, escape from) - we waited 13 years to catch Lance - we caught Landis within days, and contador within a couple of years - it's only a little progress, but it's progress.
We can see that Sastre not only rode through dark years, came from a team were doping was widespread (CSC) and he's beating Mencov who according to the Leinders case was charged.
True, all, and if something suddenly sprung on him we wouldn't be utterly shocked. But the current general view is he was clean, and that the 08 race, relatively, was clean.
Doping controls and sanctions never stopped dopers, so why now?
Lots of reasons, some of them more substantial than others. It's a discussion in and of itself - but look what's happening in athletics; a sudden explosion in 'pings'.
I agree the BP ALONE would not be enough, though I do think it has spooked a fair number of riders, especially outside the 'beloved elite' - but the holding on to samples thing is an issue too, because now thinking your ahead of the testers is not enough - you have to think you're ahead of where they will be 8 years hence.And the breaking of omerta around armstrong, however much 6mths penalties stick in the throat, lets certain people know that Omerta cannot be completely relied on any more - I have a cetain amount of hope the Radobank/dutch investigation will "double down" on that idea - and Omerta, i hope, is a dam - it only takes a few decent cracks to break it. If we could get the Fuentes info somehow too - that might just be enough to breach it below the waterline....as i said, cautious hope, incremental steps, and not being afraid to be proved wrong.
I'll assume you are not having a laugh here and that you indeed think Sky is not overpowering strong this year. Suffice to say that once again the cold hard evidence shows that Sky is stronger than last year.
I don't think Sky have faced the full force of the
Saxo Pais Vasco squad yet - Personally, I suspect Froome will find himself a lot more isolated that you expect come july...
Come, come now Martin, you do know that the pesky thing called historical data shows chances that Wiggins is dirty are massively stacked against him.
Sorry, but is the coin toss fallacy.
The cherry picking and omiting of the whole picture is a nice tactic, but clearly it won't work. The facts are still there and can only be explained away by mind-gymnastics or belief in the trustworthiness of those involved (and again historical data shows that that statistic isn't very promising).
And before you go on in this vein:
There is no need to prove a negative. They need to stop the lies, need to fire DB and come with believable explanations.
And before you answer "their answers are believable, it's just you who don;t believes them". Dave Brailsford is absolutely and utterly untrustworthy considering he has told verifiable false things and does that very, very regulary.
Another blood red flag. A lieing manager is not someone you should trust.
It saves so much time when you decide what questions i should ask...you know, as opposed to letting me ask myself. Very efficient...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram