@TMM
Well, that's not really offending me as a person, even though I'm connected to Wilco of course. But well, since there are no indications at all of Wilco being on drugs, suck it
@Benji Well, I suppose those pics could be taken offensive, but allright
@Jph This might shock you, but I also have opinions that are not Kelderman-related Edited by Jesleyh on 04-05-2014 22:33
jph27 wrote:
Everyone's entitled to their opinion as long as it isn't discriminatory towards others. Don't see anything wrong with Aquarius post.
Of course he can show off his opinion and it's not discriminatory one, but it's clearly an attacking insult and that's definitely not welcome here. A 35+ y/o guy behaving like that and saying something like that to 14y/o guy? Really?
If you're old enough to be on the forum, you're old enough to take people disagreeing with you
I can see your point, but I don't see a huge issue. That kind of post isn't unusual, especially in this thread.
Disagreeing ≠Insulting. Of course, that Ewan's post is just ridiculous, these are not even a proper reasons and it's really funny, but everyone should have his own opinion and everyone should respect it. At least that's the idea that you, West, is propagating (I guess).
About that whole Froome rant on previous page: I personally find Froome to be an uninspiring, very uninteresting person. I don't care really for him except for the fact that he's a good rider who has won the Tour de France, and whom I see him as a challenge for Contador, Purito & Valv. It speaks volumes that he had such a harsh childhood, a disease and so forth (and I'm probably ignorant here) but I still find him to be so incredbily dull. I don't even know why people want to talk about him here and there and everywhere. Talking about Froome is for me like talking about the weather...
I can't even say so much about him: I know him only as the lap-dog of Wiggins and a (rather humble) dominator with some weird attacks along the way to the top. Saying that he attacks is meaningless though. Everybody attacks when you're the best rider. He clearly was the best rider in 2013 until le Tour and in the Tour de Romandie this year. Heck, even Valverde attacks when he knows/believes he's best... Attacking when you're the best, is like eating when you're hungry. You just do it.
Difference is, Contador attacks even when he's off form or suffers injury, because he wants to, because he feels like it. Because he's an excellent climber but first and foremost he's a fighter. If you, atlanta, want to know why Contador is liked apparently at Cycling News forum, it has probably something to do because with Froome you get what you except, while Contador sometimes does something out of the ordinary (Tirreno-Adriatico, even Pais Vasco sorta on the first stage). And we've come to know Contador as a fighter right from the start. Tour against Rasmussen, he fought there everyday and was inferior to Rasmussen. Doped or whatever, the duel stands.
Froome used to be a goofball and then he was apparently the best rider in the world. There was nothing in between. Not that this is particularly important, but he'd have to be at least charismatic to counter this development: But he is not charismatic at all. He is a humble, polite dude with a crazy GF. That's all, but for me personally, it's not enough.
From someone you never heard of to you know.. "a legend", like you said in the Tour de Romandie thread, atlanta. I've never come to know him before his dominance, never spared a second when he was a below average domestique. Sure, there are people who have followed his every move like I did with other riders, but I had never had a chance to build up slighty a relationship to him before he went to winning ways. And then he suddenly was winning and everything, and sigh... so dull. I still have no reason to want to get to know him. He can dominate the Tour de France as much as he wants, he will still most likely always remain a blank sheet for me that I won't miss when he retires. And now looking at this whole post, I wonder why I even made the effort to type that, every word on Froome is just so useless...
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
This is so fucked up. Mainly, my opinion is that Froome (and Valverde and Contador, not so sure after that) are doped. No need to debate about it really, since it makes no difference anyway. On one hand you have a huge pile of evidencee that speaks against him, on the other side he hasn't been caught. Though that doesn't necessarily mean anything, as Armstrong showed us. Though i have to say, there's no need to attack people personally, just not the thing to do.
Also, somebody seemingly wants to be an admin.
(Not looking at Jesleyh. IMO, Jesleyh IS already an admin. )
I don't get it. Whenever someone comes along with a post like atlanta or EwanWilson, just link this post. It contains most of the arguments why we generally think that Sky's doping, and it might be a good starting point to any pontential further discussion.
Because you can't just expect anybody to be as informed. If you don't have all the information, it might just be a valid opinion to think that Sky could be clean.
Giving actual arguments instead of a facepalm could help keeping this thread somewhat meaningful.
EwanWilson wrote:
Sky aren't doped, they are negative, meaning they're clean. Just because they win doesn't make them doped. Imagine if your favorite team came from nowhere and won a shit ton of races, this is just a stupid conspiracy theory spinning around but I think, because its happened before, and people know the consequences, they won't do it. SKY AREN'T DOPED, END OF STORY
Spoiler
Just because someone has his own opinion doesn't allow you to post something like this. That's clearly an insult.
Sure, people are allowed to have their own opinions and that's what this thread is for, and I'm sure Aquarius just put that meme there because the argument has been there for Sky doping for so long that he just posted that lightheartedly, I mean how serious can an internet forum be?
Plus, it's just one post, and I don't think it's very necessary to "moderate" other people's conversation unless someone is really offended.
I honestly don't think Aquarius bothers to deliberately insult other users, more of a meme to make a joke for the rest of the users reading I guess. Also, it's not correct to judge a person's tone towards another user based on their age.
Admir, I think you can let a few things go, e.g. spamming or a slight cross of the line, and what we often see as "abusive moderators" in other forums have the sense of hard-line rules and very little room for a couple of pokes here and there. Plus, a 14 year old can adequately voice their opinion that they were offended by a meme himself.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
I overreacted on that one, as some serious discussion was going on in that moment, so I apologize. Man, I should really, really stop jumping in the conversations...
But still, that "meme" (can't even say that's a proper meme) isn't the best way to answer on such a post. It can really look rude if you're not in all of that "meme" and "trolling" story.
Edited by admirschleck on 05-05-2014 01:14
jph27 wrote:
Everyone's entitled to their opinion as long as it isn't discriminatory towards others. Don't see anything wrong with Aquarius post.
Of course he can show off his opinion and it's not discriminatory one, but it's clearly an attacking insult and that's definitely not welcome here. A 35+ y/o guy behaving like that and saying something like that to 14y/o guy? Really?
And here I thought Aquarius just turned 31. Exaggerating for your own argument's sake is also pretty petty behavior, don't you think?
EwanWilson wrote:
Sky aren't doped, they are negative, meaning they're clean. Just because they win doesn't make them doped. Imagine if your favorite team came from nowhere and won a shit ton of races, this is just a stupid conspiracy theory spinning around but I think, because its happened before, and people know the consequences, they won't do it. SKY AREN'T DOPED, END OF STORY
baseballlover312 wrote:
And here I thought Aquarius just turned 31. Exaggerating for your own argument's sake is also pretty petty behavior, don't you think?
Really can't see the point of this. However, whatever it supposed to mean, we should stop talking about it (and this topic generally), as this is the Sky's Thread, not the Admir's one.
EwanWilson wrote:
Sky aren't doped, they are negative, meaning they're clean. Just because they win doesn't make them doped. Imagine if your favorite team came from nowhere and won a shit ton of races, this is just a stupid conspiracy theory spinning around but I think, because its happened before, and people know the consequences, they won't do it. SKY AREN'T DOPED, END OF STORY
Cunego i think you will find i did not say Froome is clean I was saying it is very hypocritcial to support a doper and hate one at same time. And Shonak Froome attacks when he is not on form to so you cant say its easy when your the best. Did you watch Catalunya this year Froome attacked after they bought Fuglsang back, also im sure you remember Froome blowing himself up in La Vuelta.
atlanta wrote:
Baseballover i bet your Garmin team dopes too. Dont deny your team you support is shady. I mean JV and cough cough " i got away with it" Hesjedal.
Every team has their shady riders. And that includes Garmin. but you can't seriously compare them to Sky.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
I don't think it's reasonable to say Froome/Sky are on more/better drugs than anyone else. That may well have been true in the last two years, however I think with the record times we say in the Ardennes, and Contadors resurgence, it is likely that whatever technological advantage (illegal or legal) which they had has been competed away, or at least minimised.
I suspect it's a couple more years before the Tour becomes an anyone but Sky race for the riders, but I'm hoping it will be a genuinely competitive race.
As for riding styles, Froome, Contador and Nibali are all pleasantly aggressive when they know where they stand in the pecking order. I suspect that the will avoid taking risks when they are unsure if they are strong enough, which may well be the scenario for the early part of the tour.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
atlanta wrote:
Baseballover i bet your Garmin team dopes too. Dont deny your team you support is shady. I mean JV and cough cough " i got away with it" Hesjedal.
Every team has their shady riders. And that includes Garmin. but you can't seriously compare them to Sky.
Why not? I mean isit because Garmin have not won the TDF people like to miss the fact Wiggo big transformation was at Garmin not Sky.
Whodo you trust more Vaughters or Brailsford?
cunego59 wrote:
I don't get it. Whenever someone comes along with a post like atlanta or EwanWilson, just link this post. It contains most of the arguments why we generally think that Sky's doping, and it might be a good starting point to any pontential further discussion.
Because you can't just expect anybody to be as informed. If you don't have all the information, it might just be a valid opinion to think that Sky could be clean.
Giving actual arguments instead of a facepalm could help keeping this thread somewhat meaningful.
While i agree that that post sums it up nicely, i think what is going on here is much more funny.
I see that some of you are too serious guys, this is the internet forum, not gentlemen club or nursery school. We have had shitload (more than 100 pages) of somewhat pointy discussion about SKY and their doping. If somebody is ignoring that and post something like recent SKY fanboy, you would like to take him seriously? It costs much more time than it deserves. Because of that, Aquarius posted best thing possible, while still avoiding being rude (on another forum it would be like "you STUPID b*tch matafaka lame noob idiot" and we can be glad this is not happening on Daily).
@mb: I agree, but it does not change anything on fact that SKY is making worldbeaters from nobodies, while likes of Valverde, Contador are probably top riders also on less/without dope (just my version, of course we dont know, maybe hey do it since teenage)
@atlanta: Well, your two examples of Froome "attacking" don't really do it for me. I don't count that one tiny little attack at Catalunya. We're talking attacks, not some half-hearted attempts at them...
Vuelta 2012 is a great example actually: Froome "attacked" as long as he thought he was the best, but when it was clear that he wasn't, nothing was to be seen of him of the entire race. I honestly thought, Froome dropped out at some point and was rather surprised to see him every time so high in the GC. Oh, and please don't come up with Froome's Vuelta 2011 against Cobo of all people...
Edited by Shonak on 05-05-2014 07:50
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Oh, and please don't come up with Froome's Vuelta 2011 against Cobo of all people...
