|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 19-07-2012 19:21
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Alastairhufc wrote:
The last thing I am going to say in this thread is this:
If you had wanted something all you life, would you like it if a load of people who had never met you and are jealous of what you have, how would you like it?
Maybe just lay off him and let this thread die.
Well, your signature makes it too obvious your bias, so maybe you should lay off of biased arguements.
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| CLURPR |
Posted on 19-07-2012 19:23
|
Domestique
Posts: 452
Joined: 19-01-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
Edited by CLURPR on 19-07-2012 19:25
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 19-07-2012 19:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
CLURPR wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
haha so funny. 
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Alakagom |
Posted on 19-07-2012 19:26
|
World Champion
Posts: 10891
Joined: 19-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alastairhufc wrote:
The last thing I am going to say in this thread is this:
If you had wanted something all you life, would you like it if a load of people who had never met you and are jealous of what you have, how would you like it?
Maybe just lay off him and let this thread die.
Well, your signature makes it too obvious your bias, so maybe you should lay off of biased arguements.
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
Everyone's biased. You are. He is. I am.
But you're discriminating his view because he likes Sky - so that makes his view stupid and inferior ? So why should he listen those who are against Sky - are those people not biased ? Everyone gives biased opinions and everyone's opinions are worth hearing.
Why should we listen you ? Your arguments are clearly biased against Sky ?
Edited by Alakagom on 19-07-2012 19:28
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 19-07-2012 19:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Alakagom wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alastairhufc wrote:
The last thing I am going to say in this thread is this:
If you had wanted something all you life, would you like it if a load of people who had never met you and are jealous of what you have, how would you like it?
Maybe just lay off him and let this thread die.
Well, your signature makes it too obvious your bias, so maybe you should lay off of biased arguements.
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
Everyone's biased. You are. He is. I am.
But you're discriminating his view because he likes Sky - so that makes his view stupid and inferior ? So why should he listen those who are against Sky - are those people not biased ? Everyone gives biased opinions and everyone's opinions are worth hearing.
Why should we listen you ? Your arguments are clearly biased against Sky ?
He says no evidence to back up anything. he tells us to drop the subject cause he doesn't like anyone debating about Sky. His view does not give any facts, rather tells us that we can't do anything with our lives and defends the press of Wiggins against doping because he says Wiggins has blah blah blah. It comes with the jersey.
I did the same thing as him besides the final part and people called me all kinds of things. Why is this any different? And how am I bias against Sky? Look at the facts. I believe Issoisso made a good summary here. If everyone is entitled to there opinion, listen to others before you tell people to drop the subject because you can't handle valid points>
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Coop |
Posted on 19-07-2012 19:59
|
Under 23
Posts: 77
Joined: 06-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
CLURPR wrote:
Coop wrote:
Looks like the fanboys are starting to get their feelings hurt. So there is no proof, but one either believes Sky is doping, or one does not. What drives me batty is when the fanboys pipe on about training harder, better, more efficiently, etc... Yada yada yada! Recycled excuses from the Armstrong days, only with proper English!
Got any hard evidence to prove Sky are doping?
I didn't even really have to bait that hook for long before a fanboy bit with the "Armstrong" defense.
Like I said, there is no proof, but I believe they are doping. My belief comes from seeing one team demonstrate the same sort of control we saw from the Disco/Postal days, and then having two of their riders simply ride everyone else off their wheels with barely a grimace. Today reminded me of '06 when Ricco and Piepoli rode away from everyone. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 19-07-2012 20:25
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
It was 2008 actually. |
| |
|
|
| kgarvey |
Posted on 19-07-2012 20:42
|
Free Agent
Posts: 100
Joined: 23-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alakagom wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alastairhufc wrote:
The last thing I am going to say in this thread is this:
If you had wanted something all you life, would you like it if a load of people who had never met you and are jealous of what you have, how would you like it?
Maybe just lay off him and let this thread die.
Well, your signature makes it too obvious your bias, so maybe you should lay off of biased arguements.
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
Everyone's biased. You are. He is. I am.
But you're discriminating his view because he likes Sky - so that makes his view stupid and inferior ? So why should he listen those who are against Sky - are those people not biased ? Everyone gives biased opinions and everyone's opinions are worth hearing.
Why should we listen you ? Your arguments are clearly biased against Sky ?
He says no evidence to back up anything. he tells us to drop the subject cause he doesn't like anyone debating about Sky. His view does not give any facts, rather tells us that we can't do anything with our lives and defends the press of Wiggins against doping because he says Wiggins has blah blah blah. It comes with the jersey.
I did the same thing as him besides the final part and people called me all kinds of things. Why is this any different? And how am I bias against Sky? Look at the facts. I believe Issoisso made a good summary here. If everyone is entitled to there opinion, listen to others before you tell people to drop the subject because you can't handle valid points>
I must have missed the part where there is any evidence other than circumstantial from the anti-sky camp. Also a lot of people seem to not realise that when making an assertion the burden is on you to prove it not for the other to disprove it. It's the first rule of logic and is abused too often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosop...n_of_proof
P.S I'm not saying Sky aren't suspicious, I think they are. But the unfairness of argument imposed by some in here is frankly laughable
Edited by kgarvey on 19-07-2012 20:47
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 11:25
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 19-07-2012 20:47
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Please read the thread. Technically all of the Armstrong evidence is circumstancial too if you go by that. But please read the thread over again, because you really did miss the scientific part about the insane wattage level, doctor, training place, jump in performance. Yes, it is circumstantial, but can you really prove anyone doped completely? No, but it happens, and people are convicted on far less than the Sky evidence.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 19-07-2012 20:52
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
kgarvey wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alakagom wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alastairhufc wrote:
The last thing I am going to say in this thread is this:
If you had wanted something all you life, would you like it if a load of people who had never met you and are jealous of what you have, how would you like it?
Maybe just lay off him and let this thread die.
Well, your signature makes it too obvious your bias, so maybe you should lay off of biased arguements.
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
Everyone's biased. You are. He is. I am.
But you're discriminating his view because he likes Sky - so that makes his view stupid and inferior ? So why should he listen those who are against Sky - are those people not biased ? Everyone gives biased opinions and everyone's opinions are worth hearing.
Why should we listen you ? Your arguments are clearly biased against Sky ?
He says no evidence to back up anything. he tells us to drop the subject cause he doesn't like anyone debating about Sky. His view does not give any facts, rather tells us that we can't do anything with our lives and defends the press of Wiggins against doping because he says Wiggins has blah blah blah. It comes with the jersey.
I did the same thing as him besides the final part and people called me all kinds of things. Why is this any different? And how am I bias against Sky? Look at the facts. I believe Issoisso made a good summary here. If everyone is entitled to there opinion, listen to others before you tell people to drop the subject because you can't handle valid points>
I must have missed the part where there is any evidence other than circumstantial from the anti-sky camp. Also a lot of people seem to not realise that when making an assertion the burden is on you to prove it not for the other to disprove it. It's the first rule of logic and is abused too often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosop...n_of_proof
P.S I'm not saying Sky aren't suspicious, I think they are. But the unfairness of argument imposed by some in here is frankly laughable
If having riders listed as "overwhelming evidence of doping" on the blood passport leaked list, and then going out and signing several more who were listed even higher on the suspicion index is circumstancial, then you clearly won't allow people to argue their opinion unless there's a positive test.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| CLURPR |
Posted on 19-07-2012 21:02
|
Domestique
Posts: 452
Joined: 19-01-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Slightly off topic here, but did anyone watch the Bradley Wiggins documentary on ITV tonight? |
| |
|
|
| Likkivi |
Posted on 19-07-2012 21:15
|
Stagiare
Posts: 201
Joined: 30-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Never knew Wales was the nation that introduced doping in cycling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Mi...my_Michael
Edited by Likkivi on 19-07-2012 21:16
|
| |
|
|
| SweatyViking |
Posted on 19-07-2012 21:37
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1040
Joined: 19-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Intelligent Welshmen  |
| |
|
|
| kgarvey |
Posted on 19-07-2012 21:55
|
Free Agent
Posts: 100
Joined: 23-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
kgarvey wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alakagom wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
Alastairhufc wrote:
The last thing I am going to say in this thread is this:
If you had wanted something all you life, would you like it if a load of people who had never met you and are jealous of what you have, how would you like it?
Maybe just lay off him and let this thread die.
Well, your signature makes it too obvious your bias, so maybe you should lay off of biased arguements.
P.S. If anyone relates this to my former Armstrong defense,, I will not answer, I have had to explain that too often.
Everyone's biased. You are. He is. I am.
But you're discriminating his view because he likes Sky - so that makes his view stupid and inferior ? So why should he listen those who are against Sky - are those people not biased ? Everyone gives biased opinions and everyone's opinions are worth hearing.
Why should we listen you ? Your arguments are clearly biased against Sky ?
He says no evidence to back up anything. he tells us to drop the subject cause he doesn't like anyone debating about Sky. His view does not give any facts, rather tells us that we can't do anything with our lives and defends the press of Wiggins against doping because he says Wiggins has blah blah blah. It comes with the jersey.
I did the same thing as him besides the final part and people called me all kinds of things. Why is this any different? And how am I bias against Sky? Look at the facts. I believe Issoisso made a good summary here. If everyone is entitled to there opinion, listen to others before you tell people to drop the subject because you can't handle valid points>
I must have missed the part where there is any evidence other than circumstantial from the anti-sky camp. Also a lot of people seem to not realise that when making an assertion the burden is on you to prove it not for the other to disprove it. It's the first rule of logic and is abused too often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosop...n_of_proof
P.S I'm not saying Sky aren't suspicious, I think they are. But the unfairness of argument imposed by some in here is frankly laughable
If having riders listed as "overwhelming evidence of doping" on the blood passport leaked list, and then going out and signing several more who were listed even higher on the suspicion index is circumstancial, then you clearly won't allow people to argue their opinion unless there's a positive test.
Not once have I attempted to stop anyone arguing or voicing there opinion.
My point was solely to do with the fact that criticising the sky 'fanboys' for not having evidence that something didn't happen is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure if my point may have gotten mixed up in the argument to which I replied. I only meant to pick up on the line ' He has no evidence to back up anything' which seems to follow a general line in this thread that purely speculative arguments such as 'Armstrong did this the same etc etc obviously doping' and 'Wiggins attitude during the tour' is somehow more valid than the opposing claims such as 'the new swimming coaches fitness plan is what's making the difference'.
As regard the leaked blood passport list from the 2010 tdf. Worth noting that Wiggins himself was not in the 'overwhelming' category (just because he is one of the main targets of accusation this time round) unlike certain fan favourites such as Tony Martin who I can't imagine would receive the same flak if he lost weight and started performing as a GC rider but perhaps he would who knows. VDB is a staggering 9/10 on that list yet doesn't seem to receive much hate.
Primarily however if the cycling news article here is to be believed, you have the wording a bit mistaken, the actual wording is "circumstantial evidence of possible doping was overwhelming". When you only have circumstantial evidence that means there are always, always other possible explanations. So to bring me back to my original point, to laugh down these other possible explanations is unfounded and unfair, as overwhelming as the circumstantial evidence may or may not be.
Trust me you are the last person I wish to get into a debate about cycling with, it would be like an amateur stepping into a ring with Mike Tyson. You are almost sure Sky are doping and that only adds to a casual fan such as myself's suspicions.
Edited by kgarvey on 19-07-2012 21:59
|
| |
|
|
| kgarvey |
Posted on 19-07-2012 22:11
|
Free Agent
Posts: 100
Joined: 23-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Please read the thread. Technically all of the Armstrong evidence is circumstancial too if you go by that. But please read the thread over again, because you really did miss the scientific part about the insane wattage level, doctor, training place, jump in performance. Yes, it is circumstantial, but can you really prove anyone doped completely? No, but it happens, and people are convicted on far less than the Sky evidence.
Testimony from someone who was there to witness the event is considered direct evidence. As for the science side, I'm really not the one to comment on that unfortunately. That Guardian article posted before seemed to offer an informed scientific view that backed up the sky side however (as well as the riders finishing alongside them such as Nibali and VDB in regards to wattages). Who is correct? I'm certainly not in a position to say.
Have people really been banned for less than the evidence against sky? If true I feel they've been very hard done by. |
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 19-07-2012 22:19
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Could throw them all into a wooden barrel and any who float are obviously dopers. Any who sink, well they were clean. I believe this has been tried before and was deemed quite successful.
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 19-07-2012 22:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
If people claim to witness the event, they could be lying. Everything could be a lie.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| kgarvey |
Posted on 19-07-2012 22:26
|
Free Agent
Posts: 100
Joined: 23-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
If people claim to witness the event, they could be lying. Everything could be a lie.
I'm not going to argue with you there. |
| |
|
|
| kgarvey |
Posted on 19-07-2012 22:28
|
Free Agent
Posts: 100
Joined: 23-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
9-Ball wrote:
Could throw them all into a wooden barrel and any who float are obviously dopers. Any who sink, well they were clean. I believe this has been tried before and was deemed quite successful.
Haha yeah I hear similar methods were emphatically successful in Salem a couple of hundred years ago. |
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 19-07-2012 22:56
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Interesting little graphic here based on stage 16's last climb. No I'm not saying it's proof of anything, other than that cycling seems to be heading in the right direction as a whole for the last few years https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/st...44/photo/1 |
| |
|
