Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[Don't be late Pedro]

When I responded to the first I did not know you had actually had dug up a 3 week old post.
You updated earlier today and expected a response within a short-time?

Which post of mine indicated an expectation of a response within a short time?

Why didnt your response say that you were waiting for a reply?
Thats a response, thats how forums work.

If I ask a question then it is normally implicit that I am waiting for a reply.

You - you are trolling.

if you had a genuine wish for an answer you would have waited until a reply was given today before responding.

You keep on bleating about this but I still have no idea which response you are on about. I asked a question a few weeks ago. I then asked it again yesterday. I never showed any expectation of an instant answer.

A quick and easy question - if you were looking for an answer from SB then I assume you would have asked by PM or highlighted that you brought up a post from 3 weeks ago.
Did you PM SB?

You can assume all you want. I feel there is no need to PM people everytime I would like an answer to a question. That is what the forum is for after all.
What is the SOL before a question needs to be highlighted. Just so I know for next time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Which post of mine indicated an expectation of a response within a short time?


If I ask a question then it is normally implicit that I am waiting for a reply.


You keep on bleating about this but I still have no idea which response you are on about. I asked a question a few weeks ago. I then asked it again yesterday. I never showed any expectation of an instant answer.


You can assume all you want. I feel there is no need to PM people everytime I would like an answer to a question. That is what the forum is for after all.
What is the SOL before a question needs to be highlighted. Just so I know for next time.

Thanks Pedro, i will.
As you made no effort to contact Sittingbisson I assume you had no genuine interest in their answer, you were merely doing so to troll.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Thanks Pedro, i will.
As you made no effort to contact Sittingbisson I assume you had no genuine interest in their answer, you were merely doing so to troll.

Yes, no interest at all.
Other than posting on the forum and asking the question.
Twice.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, no interest at all.
Other than posting on the forum and asking the question.
Twice.

Asking questions is fine - answering the question wasn't.

You waited 3 weeks and reposted your question and then within 1 hour you posted this:

sittingbison will know doubt have a link. A mod is not going to have made that kind of stuff up otherwise that is 'slander of the worst kind' (to coin a phrase).

If you genuinely wanted an answer you could have contacted the person over the last 3 weeks, you could have sent a PM to highlight your question.

You made no attempt to contact SB and give them an opportunity to find what you want, or correct what they posted - yet you accuse them of 'slander of the worst kind'.

 

[sittingbison]

I am still interested in a link/source for the above in red [Wiggins calling USDA a disgrace]. As I mentioned in a previous post I never read an interview where he said that I am keen to find else what else he said.

Pedro, asked and answered. Three weeks ago. As you very well know...perhaps not del1962 though, who has a propensity for not reading threads.

...for the rest of you, I have clearly paraphrased his comments to demonstrate a timeline of changed attitudes, they are all extremely well known and discussed at length here and elsewhere, look them up yourself. His comments during USADA included...

This was in reply to RownhamHil and you perfectly reasonable comments (also three weeks ago) but are certainly not stridently demanding links or hysterically calling me a liar:

This is new to me - when did he say anything like this?

I would also be interested in reading the interview where he said this.

Funnily enough jimmyfingers who is a poster that I have had many interesting discussions with and oftern disagree with but I presume shares a mutual respect had THIS to say, also three weeks ago:

Fair enough, a fairly concise timeline on Brad's public statements....

Pedro, you then said (also three weeks ago):

I must admit, even if you are paraphrasing, I still do not recall reading anything in the bold below [Wiggins calling USDA a disgrace]....So it would be interesting to read exactly what he said with respect to this.

I had just said look it up yourself because yes, it IS interesting to read. If you could not find Sir Wiggos "disgraceful" comments about USADA prosecuting Lance (prior to the reasoned decision), that they had no right to prosecute Lance, that witnesses are liars, that there was no evidence, he had not failed a test despite being tested 500 times bla bla bla thats your problem not mine. Mind you, strangely enough its now pretty hard to find anything Sir Wiggo said on this subject prior to the reasoned decison. But google is your friend Pedro, give it a shot, see how you go. And if you could not understand the concept of paraphrasing, thats also your problem not mine.

As far as I was concerned there was nothing else left to answer. Nor I did not receive a PM from you or RownhamHil in over three weeks to provide further comment or links, and further nobody has raised my comment as inappropriate and requiring moderation.

Pedro, my thoughts on the matter for the past three weels are summed up clearly by another poster:

In which case you are missing the point of what I have said.

Yet three weeks later, out of the blue, comes these disgraceful comments:

sittingbison will know doubt have a link. A mod is not going to have made that kind of stuff up otherwise that is 'slander of the worst kind' (to coin a phrase).

This is a long way from saying USADA is a disgrace which the moderator said.

...a moderator has made a clain that Brad said that "USADA are a disgrace", we think the moderator is lying, we are asking him for evidence to back up his claim...

More noise from another idiot, this is about a mod making stuff up,

Because Wiggins never said USADA are a disgrace or anything like that, amd someone who is a moderator is just making stuff up...

...Plenty of other mods (and posters) have a negative opinion of Sky so I don't think it is purely related to that.

Hmmmmmmmmm.......charming.

Pedro, funnily enough not you, del1962 or in fact any other sky supporter has made any effort at answering the actual point of my initial post which was as clear as day. Here it is again to remind you, seeing as it was over three weeks ago:

...the importance of this last statement is Sir Wiggo just admitted he KNEW in his own mind Lance was a cheat in 2009, before all the bromance BS last couple of years.

if you, del1962 or any other poster for that matter, can explain how in 2013 Sir Wiggo says he’s convinced that Lance violated doping rules in his 2009 return to cycling, and claims he was robbed of a top-three finish at that year’s Tour, basing his suspicions on observations he made while racing alongside Armstrong in key mountain stages in 2009:

"I can still remember going toe to toe with him, watching the man I saw on the top of Verbier in 2009 to the man I saw on the top of Ventoux a week later when we were in doping control together. It wasn't the same bike rider. You only have to watch the videos of how the guy was riding. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth anymore."

yet in numerous interviews AFTER 2009 but PRIOR to #DOPRAH said (paraphrasing) he never raced against Lance, that he loved Lance, that he wanted Sky to be just like USPS, that Lance was great for cycling, that Lance was not doping because he never failed a test, and that USADA should not be prosecuting him because there was no evidence, THEN I might consider answering your questions.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Asking questions is fine - answering the question wasn't.

You waited 3 weeks and reposted your question and then within 1 hour you posted this:

sittingbison will know doubt have a link. A mod is not going to have made that kind of stuff up otherwise that is 'slander of the worst kind' (to coin a phrase).

If you genuinely wanted an answer you could have contacted the person over the last 3 weeks, you could have sent a PM to highlight your question.

You made no attempt to contact SB and give them an opportunity to find what you want, or correct what they posted - yet you accuse them of 'slander of the worst kind'.

How from my comment is there any indication that I was not giving him a chance to reply? And you are excluding the fact that the comment was in reply to another poster.

And, as for why I waited 3 weeks, I have answered that in a previous post

It is quite common for posters not to see questions aimed at them. I decided ample time had passed and decided to revisit the question.

I suggested it would be 'slander of the worst kind' if it were made up. That is why I said there is no doubt there is a link. It is simple stuff yet you seem to have great difficulty understanding it.

 

[sittingbison]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Sittingbison does not have a link, because he made the quote up on Wiggo's behalf, loosely based on something that he did say.

If Sittingbison can provide the link to the words he attributes to Wiggo then I will happily withdraw this accusation and issue a full apology.

Wallace I would like to point out a fine distinction that certain posters are obfuscating on purpose for their own agenda. I did not "quote" Sir Wiggo, nor did I did "make the quote up". I paraphrased the context of numerous interviews in my initial post and quite clearly said that I had done so in my second post the next day (three weeks ago).

...I have clearly paraphrased his comments to demonstrate a timeline of changed attitudes, they are all extremely well known and discussed at length here and elsewhere, look them up yourself. His comments during USADA included....

For those of us that English is not a first language, or those of us that it is but didn't finish school, a paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.

No apologies necessary

 

[thehog]

Wallace I would like to point out a fine distinction that certain posters are obfuscating on purpose for their own agenda. I did not "quote" Sir Wiggo, nor did I did "make the quote up". I paraphrased the context of numerous interviews in my initial post and quite clearly said that I had done so in my second post the next day (three weeks ago).



For those of us that English is not a first language, or those of us that it is but didn't finish school, a paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.

No apologies necessary

Well stated.

Skybot72 Pedro has lost the plot.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How from my comment is there any indication that I was not giving him a chance to reply? And you are excluding the fact that the comment was in reply to another poster.

By commenting in the first place - very simple.
As for "excluding" that it was reply, i am not excluding -I am downright ignoring it because it is totally irrelevant.

You could just as easily replied that you await a post from SB - you chose not to.

And, as for why I waited 3 weeks, I have answered that in a previous post



I suggested it would be 'slander of the worst kind' if it were made up. That is why I said there is no doubt there is a link. It is simple stuff yet you seem to have great difficulty understanding it.

Is that the only option?

It is simple stuff though, I understand it perfectly well - you are trolling.

 

[thehog]

How from my comment is there any indication that I was not giving him a chance to reply? And you are excluding the fact that the comment was in reply to another poster.

And, as for why I waited 3 weeks, I have answered that in a previous post



I suggested it would be 'slander of the worst kind' if it were made up. That is why I said there is no doubt there is a link. It is simple stuff yet you seem to have great difficulty understanding it.

Slander? Written word is libelous. Not slander.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

post deleted

This is like the banks. Outsourcing the back office. Cheap.

 

[sittingbison]

...I suggested it would be 'slander of the worst kind' if it were made up. That is why I said there is no doubt there is a link. It is simple stuff yet you seem to have great difficulty understanding it.

I suggest this is the end of the matter Pedro. I have answered you question three weeks ago, extremely clearly. I have answered again, and I have now answered Wallace in a post directly above.

You are clearly trolling now, along with del1962. I have put up with it in good grace. However acting in my capacity as a poster, which I always am unless clearly identified as acting in moderator mode, I will report any further derogatory, insulting or trolling comments to the administrators.

I suggest you have a quick gekko of the forum rules on derogatory, insulting and trolling posts against forum members. Here is a quick review of the pertinent aspects:

6. No insulting other members
7. No caustic insults or humiliation of individuals in public outside of this forum. Most public figures may be considered fair game for criticism or lampooning, but again, use common sense.
8. No discriminatory remarks of any kind.
11. Blatant lying, baiting, or teasing other members will not be tolerated.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

What is disgraceful about my two comments? The first I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And, the second was in reply to Parrulo explaining that I did not think in this case it was a Sky related issue. Just because you highlight mod in red does not mean it is 'disgraceful'.

I have never argued your initial point. Just asked for clarification as to how you reached your interpretation of events.

It was a simple question and I have no idea why it has spiraled into this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Slander? Written word is libelous. Not slander.

Even though you did quote them correctly, lets chalk it down that they were 'paraphrasing'.

 

[sittingbison]

And I am now acting in moderator mode as I think most are asleep and I do mot want this thread hijacked.

Read Parrulos comment an hour ago.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Even though you did quote them correctly, lets chalk it down that they were 'paraphrasing'.

I was referring to a quote made by SB so you should really speak to him about the difference. And with that I am done.

 

[Parrulo]

this thread has gone wildly off topic, it either goes back on track or it gets closed.

further discussion about the mods should be taken to the mods thread.

also thehog's post calling other member a skybot was deleted.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Wallace I would like to point out a fine distinction that certain posters are obfuscating on purpose for their own agenda. I did not "quote" Sir Wiggo, nor did I did "make the quote up". I paraphrased the context of numerous interviews in my initial post and quite clearly said that I had done so in my second post the next day (three weeks ago).



For those of us that English is not a first language, or those of us that it is but didn't finish school, a paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.

No apologies necessary

Well I am genuinely sorry if I misrepresented your intentions.

I still can't find anything that Wiggins has said/written that could be interpreted as meaning that USADA is/was a disgrace, but that is maybe due to poor research skills on my behalf.

Most if not all of Wiggo's interviews make it into the mainstream media here, and I don't recall reading anything that could be so interpreted either, though I do recall reading or have found links to the other elements of the summary of Wiggo's "thoughts" that you compiled. Perhaps you can remember what he did say that gave rise to your conclusion that Wiggo was labelling USADA a disgrace.

 

[sittingbison]

Well I am genuinely sorry if I misrepresented your intentions.

I still can't find anything that Wiggins has said/written that could be interpreted as meaning that USADA is/was a disgrace, but that is maybe due to poor research skills on my behalf.

Most if not all of Wiggo's interviews make it into the mainstream media here, and I don't recall reading anything that could be so interpreted either, though I do recall reading or have found links to the other elements of the summary of Wiggo's "thoughts" that you compiled. Perhaps you can remember what he did say that gave rise to your conclusion that Wiggo was labelling USADA a disgrace.

Sure Wallace, here you go:

...Sir Wiggos "disgraceful" comments about USADA prosecuting Lance (prior to the reasoned decision), that they had no right to prosecute Lance, that witnesses are liars, that there was no evidence, he had not failed a test despite being tested 500 times bla bla bla...

I found his position on USADA and Lance disgraceful. Especially in light of his recent admission that he KNEW in 2009 that Lance was doping JUST BY LOOKING AT HIM by comparing the rider from Verbiers to Ventoux.

Good luck finding ANYTHING Sir Wiggo said that has USADA included prior to the Reasoned Decision...it looks like Sky have been busy

PS its really funny that a multiple olympic gold medallist, multiple world champion and Tour de France winner can tell a doper JUST BY LOOKING AT HIM, yet krebs et al claim nobody can tell a doped performance just by looking at them (despite ALSO claiming nearly every sports scientist in Australia KNEW Lance was a doper the whole time)

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Good luck finding ANYTHING Sir Wiggo said that has USADA included prior to the Reasoned Decision...it looks like Sky have been busy

I see my mistake now... Sky control the Internet as well the UCI hence why I could not find anything.

 

[coinneach]

Sure Wallace, here you go:


I found his position on USADA and Lance disgraceful. Especially in light of his recent admission that he KNEW in 2009 that Lance was doping JUST BY LOOKING AT HIM by comparing the rider from Verbiers to Ventoux.

Good luck finding ANYTHING Sir Wiggo said that has USADA included prior to the Reasoned Decision...it looks like Sky have been busy

PS its really funny that a multiple olympic gold medallist, multiple world champion and Tour de France winner can tell a doper JUST BY LOOKING AT HIM, yet krebs et al claim nobody can tell a doped performance just by looking at them (despite ALSO claiming nearly every sports scientist in Australia KNEW Lance was a doper the whole time)

You´d be better just apologising rather than minimising, blaming, deflecting, trying to change the subject.
Doesn´t make the Clinic look good if the Mods can´t even hold their hands up.

 

[sittingbison]

Pedro I suspect you have far more problems than not being able to understand a "wink" emoticon

As I said, good luck in finding ANYTHING Sir Wiggo said with the word USADA included prior to the Reasoned Decision. Despite the charge letter, the brouhaha over certain American riders competing in the Tour, the failed Federal Court Injunction, and Lance refusing the adjudication process. You know, all that time that led to about 20000 posts here.

After all, its not like TeamLance has been able to influence what is posted on the internet or stored on google cahes. Is it?

You´d be better just apologising rather than minimising, blaming, deflecting, trying to change the subject.
Doesn´t make the Clinic look good if the Mods can´t even hold their hands up.

coinneach, I have nothing to apologise for. And I am not "minimising, blaming, deflecting, trying to change the subject". My initial post clearly stated what the subject matter was about, and second post clearly explained I have not "quoted" anything I have paraphrased.

And this really IS the end of the story. I have politely answered Wallace and Grommit. Thats all she cried.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

SittingBison,

Call me pedantic if you must, but this is the paraphrased quote you attributed to Wiggo at the start of this farago:

"USADA are a disgrace, the witnesses are lyers, Lance is great."

And this is what you just posted as the basis for the above paraphrased quote:

"...that they had no right to prosecute Lance, that witnesses are liars, that there was no evidence, he had not failed a test despite being tested 500 times [bla bla bla]."

I fail to see how you can logically get to the "USADA are a disgrace" bit from the text in bold. There is a heavy element of yor personal interpretation/bias in this step. Whether this is "making it up", I'll let others judge.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Pedro I suspect you have far more problems than not being able to understand a "wink" emoticon

No idea what the "wink" emoticon means. Is there a link explaining it? Well, there probably was but Sky managed to get all traces removed, right?

As I said, good luck in finding ANYTHING Sir Wiggo said with the word USADA included prior to the Reasoned Decision. Despite the charge letter, the brouhaha over certain American riders competing in the Tour, the failed Federal Court Injunction, and Lance refusing the adjudication process. You know, all that time that led to about 20000 posts here.

After all, its not like TeamLance has been able to influence what is posted on the internet or stored on google cahes. Is it?

Yep, because only Google has servers that cache webpages.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Even on an internetforum Sky attacks are predictable, boring, well prepared but humanly possible.

Lets go back to the real world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Web2PBhZ3T0

The SKY coup d'etat.