I would guess It's easier to say clinic when you mean Benotti, hoggy etc. Benotti and hoggy are those I recognize as most prominently saying the same things over and over. And they post a lot and there seems to be little variance in their posts.
Benotti In my mind just says the same thing over and over, while hoggy can be quite funny. So I notice Hoggy more than Benotti likely because I sometimes don't bother to read his posts(it's usually the same thing).
It's my impression that they start things rolling and others hop on the band wagon.
It's very hard to argue when ball starts rolling because so many nonsensical posts come up.
I remember this from last week in the Froome thread.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17756&page=114
post #2276
Taxus4a a had taken the time to write about Froomes history. This has been discussed ad naseum earlier in the thread and the sky thread without anything but new arguments and pictures of Froomes forehead and what not. I seem to remember some insults, and accusations of him being a troll as well. They might have been deleted by the mods, I don't know, I might be mixing events aswell.
I wonder how many actually took the time to read it. It's long. Personally I'we so far only read until 2010. I will read the rest soon.
The point is it seemed to me that the attack dogs were after him for daring to argue that he might be clean.
There seemed to be little or no arguments about the blogs contents.
And then came the pictures of Froomes forehead, and the tread went on.
The next example is David Walsh, from hero to zero because he is embedded with sky.
And then Race Radio talks about having dinner with Porte, and IIRC in another thread talked about not having any indication they were doping.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18726&page=55
#1098
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1254362#post1254362
#1345
And now Race Radio seems to have betrayed the cause.
And we have the accusations of being skybots because one argues against them doping.
I'm starting to get a general idea of how things work:
If you say someone is doping outside the clinic you get a ban.
If you say someone is clean in the clinic you get trolled.
And there seems to be a special animosity towards sky among some posters. I'm not sure if they are convinced they are doping, or there is something else about them that gets them riled up without themselves being aware of it.
Well, I just aired my frustrations, anyway. I have hopes that discussions could make a little more sense and not descend into pictures of froomes forehead.
Now I have yet to understand the concept of trolling, and I understand this forum has had trouble with sockpuppets. I just read the arguments a poster makes and judges by that, and leave it to those with a nose for those to take it to the mods.
Anyway I have the impression that accusations of sockpuppet or trolling are more likely to come in relation to posters arguing against doping.
It could of course be my own bias that distorts my perception, but could it also be that those speaking against the tide in this forum illicits a certain pattern of responses?
Well Zam you just got my confession. I think you are Italian, and all Italians are catholics. Catholic priests take confessions. Hence all Italians are catholic priests.