JTL
Comments
-
frenchfighter wrote:
Oooh, Rick, I and the Boonen fanciers might have a new flame....whiteboytrash wrote:No one is asking for the process to be circumvented.
That is Exactly, 100%, the whole Kaboodle, precisely what you are asking!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Ladies do not screeeeeeam
Contador is the Greatest0 -
0
-
No its not.
But I see a lot of blind faith from the mob on this forum.
Which is disappointing.
I see many here really don't want to know if there is doping or not. As much as many here don't want to know if they are clean.
File under "I don't want to know".0 -
WBT ignore the insults.
If you want to think that the Sky corporation is all good then that's your choice. I do not trust them and the control they have. It's that simple.
I never once Said that JTL doped or doped at Sky.
I did say that JTL's results in 2012 were huge compared to previous years results.
I did say that the oddity's in his bio passport seem to come from this period.
He his under investigation and it is taking a long time and it does seem rather odd to me.
Sky IMO would try and limit damage away from themselves because he his now a Sky rider.
Sky are a huge organization and have a lot of media control the fact they reported the JLT means nothing. It would have been reported by other media organizations anyway.
And why the f%%k should I have a open mind about an organization that has phone tapped a dead girls phone.
Made up and manipulated stories to put people in a bad light.
The have turned sport into sH%% fest and IMO taken the soul out of it.
And it won't be long if they get their way that you will be paying to watch the tour etc.
Ker -Ching is all they care about.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If JTL has been doping prior to joining Sky, has been unable to continue doping while at Sky and therefore unable to maintain his 2012 results......does that not show Sky in a good light?
I don't think "showing Sky in a good light" is in question.
Who cares. Stay on topic.
Sorry, my post was entirely on topic and in response to a previous post by Rayjay.
If think not feel free to report it to the moderators
You seem to be flailing around now WBT. Are you ok? If you feel up to continuing could you answer my question?TailWindHome wrote:How doeswhiteboytrash wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:The UCI investigate under their code, which affords the rider privacy at this time, then publicly release their decision.
Sky then "act", if necessary, in response to said UCI findings.
Why is their any confusion over this?
I suspect the answer is that there isn't.
This I agree with, absolutely. 100%.
Becomewhiteboytrash wrote:JTL and Sky still not talking.
Or is your position that you understand that it would be inappropriate for Sky to make any further comment than their statement in September, but you want them to do it anyway?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
No, it wouldn't have been. No other passport case has been reported on at the stage of the process.rayjay wrote:
Sky are a huge organization and have a lot of media control the fact they reported the JLT means nothing. It would have been reported by other media organizations anyway.Twitter: @RichN950 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Do you want to know TailWindHome?
Yes, but only when the process is complete.
If it transpires that JTL has been doping he should be banned for the 2 years and sacked by Sky.
If not (or if it isn't proven) he continues to ride for the team
It's really not complicated
I would be more suspicious if Sky were circumventing or trying to undermine the process by issuing statements to the media, you know, like wot Lance done.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
Often depends what that logic is, yes?
If you wish to apply the logic that there's nothing to see here then yes your logic may indeed be correct.
But if you apply logic that questions should be asked and those questions are not being answered then there is a problem.
My suggestion would be to use history as your guide when applying logic to pro cycling.
Generally when it smells like a rat. It is a rat.
Logically, this would require Sky to sell the team bus and buy a time machine.
Still, it serves to show where you are coming from.....or maybe that should read, going?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
"Use history as your guide" Ha, If that statement were any more foolish you could stripe it pink and call it Quincey.
If we use that logic we would still believe the Earth to be flat, as the powers that were back in the day convinced the populus. Whay a k**b.0 -
Contador is the Greatest0 -
mike6 wrote:"Use history as your guide" Ha, If that statement were any more foolish you could stripe it pink and call it Quincey.
If we use that logic we would still believe the Earth to be flat, as the powers that were back in the day convinced the populus. Whay a k**b.
Was the earth flat?
It’s funny you mention this as I did a research paper on this several years ago.
It was never populous and no one actually thought it was flat as you state.
It’s an interesting theory. But truth be told there is actually living record that people thought the world was flat.
The bible knew the world was a sphere. The shadowing of the moon gives this away. The Greeks and Egyptians all knew the earth was a sphere or dome like.
It’s mostly thought that the flat earth theory came from fairytales of telling stories in relation to Christopher Columbus sailing around the world. Somewhat like Coke and the invention of Santa Claus or the existence of a Sky Zero Tolerance Policy.
So flat earth theory is just the work of fiction. Not reality. No one every thought that it was flat. Ever.
Which is a really nice segway.
Without the FULL sets of facts one often makes an incorrect judgment.
Just as you have just now.
That’s why we need more information, yes?0 -
He may be a grumpy s*d on occasion and some of his opinions are hard to stomach but every now and then he reminds us why we love him. Thanks F F for the last couple of posts. Fresh air.'fool'0
-
confused@BR wrote:He may be a grumpy s*d on occasion and some of his opinions are hard to stomach but every now and then he reminds us why we love him. Thanks F F for the last couple of posts. Fresh air.
Its just other attempt to stifle debate and shut down the thread.
That much is apparent.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:confused@BR wrote:He may be a grumpy s*d on occasion and some of his opinions are hard to stomach but every now and then he reminds us why we love him. Thanks F F for the last couple of posts. Fresh air.
Its just other attempt to stifle debate and shut down the thread.
That much is apparent.
It's not all about you.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
No, it wouldn't have been. No other passport case has been reported on at the stage of the process.rayjay wrote:
Sky are a huge organization and have a lot of media control the fact they reported the JLT means nothing. It would have been reported by other media organizations anyway.
I'm not sure I get your point Rich.
JTL case got plenty of media coverage not just from Murdos boys and girls. That was all that I was saying.
Are you saying that if it wasn't for Murdos pack reporting it then we would not even know about JTL oddity's in the first place?0 -
The "case" was blown by Walsh at the Sunday Times though, likely (but we don't know) becasue he was embedded with the team. Without that thorn in Sky's side the correct thing would have happened which was that the whole thing was kept confidential until the UCI had made a decision. once again wbt is only seeing what he wants to see then hiding behind the "asking questions" nonsense for spouting rubbish...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It was only reported because someone told David Walsh, who reported it. Without that we probably wouldn't heard about it. No official announcements have come from the UCI.rayjay wrote:I'm not sure I get your point Rich.
JTL case got plenty of media coverage not just from Murdos boys and girls. That was all that I was saying.Twitter: @RichN950 -
whiteboytrash wrote:feltkuota wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
I often find that when one cannot construct mature and meaningful arguments they tend to descend into insults.
But this is a personal matter for you to address.
Why did you change the quotes in the above? Thought it was you that made the statement about smelling a rat and not Rayjay. I will however concede I should not have called you a rat, more a duplicitous rat...0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:confused@BR wrote:He may be a grumpy s*d on occasion and some of his opinions are hard to stomach but every now and then he reminds us why we love him. Thanks F F for the last couple of posts. Fresh air.
Its just other attempt to stifle debate and shut down the thread.
That much is apparent.
Its only a debate if you engage in answering the questions put to you.
If you don't its somewhere between broadcasting and ranting.TailWindHome wrote:How doeswhiteboytrash wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:The UCI investigate under their code, which affords the rider privacy at this time, then publicly release their decision.
Sky then "act", if necessary, in response to said UCI findings.
Why is their any confusion over this?
I suspect the answer is that there isn't.
This I agree with, absolutely. 100%.
Becomewhiteboytrash wrote:JTL and Sky still not talking.
Or is your position that you understand that it would be inappropriate for Sky to make any further comment than their statement in September, but you want them to do it anyway?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I never mentioned Rats or any sort of beasty.0
-
-
RichN95 wrote:
It was only reported because someone told David Walsh, who reported it. Without that we probably wouldn't heard about it. No official announcements have come from the UCI.rayjay wrote:I'm not sure I get your point Rich.
JTL case got plenty of media coverage not just from Murdos boys and girls. That was all that I was saying.
Thanks for that Rich. I never knew that so I Apologise for that error.
It's a bit Strange that it did come out then. Sometimes the press do shut up shop.
With what's happened with Armstrong any Cycling doped type story is worth a few lines.
I wonder if Walsh would report it now given his new founded Sky status.0 -
He talks about it in the Humans Invert podcast. Basically, he was unsure as to whether to run the story as wasn't particularly fair on JTL, who had the right to expect the process not to be leaked (it probably came from within the UCI). However, after discussing it with his editor they decided that they not only had to run the story but to do it bigger than it probably merited because of the common part ownership between the Sunday Times and Sky.rayjay wrote:Thanks for that Rich. I never knew that so I Apologise for that error.
It's a bit Strange that it did come out then. Sometimes the press do shut up shop.
With what's happened with Armstrong any Cycling doped type story is worth a few lines.
I wonder if Walsh would report it now given his new founded Sky status.Twitter: @RichN950 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
Was the earth flat?
It’s funny you mention this as I did a research paper on this several years ago.
But truth be told there is actually living record that people thought the world was flat.
Not reality. No one every thought that it was flat. Ever.
You seem to be confused about the results of your own research paper WBT and you want us to all sit up and take notice about your well researched opinions on SKY!
Surely there are some PhD assessors around to take this debate even more off topicCoach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.0 -
Hi everyone. My abject apologies for naively resurrecting this thread prematurely by asking when a decision will be made.
I had no idea that such a simple request would spawn another 10 pages of nonsense when absolutely nothing new has been put in the public domain.
The internet is truly a bizarre place sometimes.0
This discussion has been closed.
