Michael Rogers Positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
I feel a poem coming ,,,,,
0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:nic_77 wrote:
You still have no idea what position I hold in this discussion, and that alone is sufficient evidence for me to dismiss your understanding of the debate. Coupled with your demonstrable lack of knowledge, poor interpretation skills and failure to provide evidence that supports your position I am confident in my assessment of the situation.whiteboytrash wrote:nic_77 wrote:
As it goes, I doubt your knowledge but I have no questions about how you apply [your lack of] it.whiteboytrash wrote:I don't doubt your knowledge. Just how you apply it is what I question.
No problems but that just demonstrates your bias and why you apply good knowledge incorrectly.
Good analysis will always be free of personal bias and looks at the facts and observations without personal influence.
(and that's all assuming you aren't just posting obtusely for the attention).
Of course he is.
Posters who are not Sky fanboys or don't necessarily hold polar opposite views point out errors or omissions in his posts are ignored until he reaches a point where the easiest way out for him is not to admit some of his facts are wrong or he doesn't have the evidence but to cry to the mods and get the thread shut down.
I think the posting of pictures endlessly demonstrated I had no intent of shutting down threads. Those with opposing views than mine who couldn't form an argument attempted that little trick.
I've alway been willing to debate topics at hand without the use of such tactics.
Why would I want to shut down discussion? All I've tried to do is encourage it.
Nobody posted pictures to shut down threads. No threads have ever been shut down on pro-race because people posted pictures on them.
You don't debate, you state. You are impervious to coherent counter argument, even when backed by expert knowledge (see all the areas where you have been schooled in biology and refused to concede).
Freiburg links, or an admission you were wrong please.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:
Go for it, Sky-boi.
Ok
Flecha : Coached by Cecchini
Morris Possoni : Ferrari customer, nabbed in Ferrari investigation
And back when the team first started we all wondered about the wisdom of employing Scott S and Nygaard.
And if we believe Darryl Webster....Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
Go for it, Sky-boi.
Ok
Flecha : Coached by Cecchini
Morris Possoni : Ferrari customer, nabbed in Ferrari investigation
And back when the team first started we all wondered about the wisdom of employing Scott S and Nygaard.
And if we believe Darryl Webster....
See, I had Flecha but I couldn't remember why so I left him off.
Back when Sky started I was still on a break from pro-race following Festina in 98 (it was the riders strikes that sealed it for me) so I may have missed a bit....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:How did Barry go on the ol' suspicious list then?
Not a good question.
I think you're selectivly picking out a rider whom was known to have previously doped and saying "look! doper and he has a low score! it must mean the list is a sham!"
Barry gave testimony to his doping history. Which he had stopped well before 2010 (2008-2009) from which the data was supplied for the list.
So if you believe what Barry had said (with the threat of perjury over his head) then, yes, you'd expect him to have a low score.
In essence it actually proves the validity of the suspicion index.
I didn't pick Barry. Joelsim did. As an example of Sky's poor due diligence in recruitment yet there he is, a big fat zero.
If I were to pick a rider to undermine a 2010 list I'd probably pick F Schleck or A Contador or L Armstrong.
As an aside - if we believe in Barry as a ex doper and there by validatw the list......does it validate the EX doper status of other riders include the Garmin USADA witnesses and Ryder H?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:How did Barry go on the ol' suspicious list then?
Not a good question.
I think you're selectivly picking out a rider whom was known to have previously doped and saying "look! doper and he has a low score! it must mean the list is a sham!"
Barry gave testimony to his doping history. Which he had stopped well before 2010 (2008-2009) from which the data was supplied for the list.
So if you believe what Barry had said (with the threat of perjury over his head) then, yes, you'd expect him to have a low score.
In essence it actually proves the validity of the suspicion index.
I didn't pick Barry. Joelsim did. As an example of Sky's poor due diligence in recruitment yet there he is, a big fat zero.
If I were to pick a rider to undermine a 2010 list I'd probably pick F Schleck or A Contador or L Armstrong.
As an aside - if we believe in Barry as a ex doper and there by validatw the list......does it validate the EX doper status of other riders include the Garmin USADA witnesses and Ryder H?
What I said was that DB has had a hard job given almost all the older riders were on the juice, and that more has come to light in recent years. But he interviews the guys...0 -
Joelsim wrote:TailWindHome wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:How did Barry go on the ol' suspicious list then?
Not a good question.
I think you're selectivly picking out a rider whom was known to have previously doped and saying "look! doper and he has a low score! it must mean the list is a sham!"
Barry gave testimony to his doping history. Which he had stopped well before 2010 (2008-2009) from which the data was supplied for the list.
So if you believe what Barry had said (with the threat of perjury over his head) then, yes, you'd expect him to have a low score.
In essence it actually proves the validity of the suspicion index.
I didn't pick Barry. Joelsim did. As an example of Sky's poor due diligence in recruitment yet there he is, a big fat zero.
If I were to pick a rider to undermine a 2010 list I'd probably pick F Schleck or A Contador or L Armstrong.
As an aside - if we believe in Barry as a ex doper and there by validatw the list......does it validate the EX doper status of other riders include the Garmin USADA witnesses and Ryder H?
What I said was that DB has had a hard job given almost all the older riders were on the juice, and that more has come to light in recent years. But he interviews the guys...
The question is less "what does he do?" and more "can he actually do more?" Apart from maybe finding a better interview panel...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Joelsim wrote:Other than Rogers, Yates and Leinders, is there anyone else Sky shouldn't have signed as they were a bit too suspicious?
Yep, understand that. He should have looked more closely at JTL. Then there is Barry.
Many of the Sky riders are young which is good as most of the older ones are obviously a no-no.
Misunderstood your meaning WRT Barry maybe.
Fair enough“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
iainf72 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
Go for it, Sky-boi.
Ok
Flecha : Coached by Cecchini
Morris Possoni : Ferrari customer, nabbed in Ferrari investigation
And back when the team first started we all wondered about the wisdom of employing Scott S and Nygaard.
And if we believe Darryl Webster....
Cioni is a worry. 2004 Giro and now he's a DS! :shock:
But like I said. Hard job onto to hire non-doping staff at least for another 10 years.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Hey maca I was simply referring to BS saying most presume him innocent when the poll presume him guilty.
Edit. I just reread his post and it also seems to say most think he is guilty. Little confused now...
I'm not surprised, since I said neither.
I didn't pass any definitive judgement.
Which was kind of the point."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Joelsim wrote:
Therein the difficulty lies. They probably pretty much know that they have a very very small pool to choose from. And he has retired.
See, that's not actually realism, that's cynicism.
Sky is actually chock full of British track riders who Brailsford had worked with, knew the power data etc. and had a reasonable assumption that they were clean.
Other than Rogers, Yates and Leinders, is there anyone else Sky shouldn't have signed as they were a bit too suspicious?
This made me chuckle, sorry Doc.
Yet the bloke signed JTL using, allegedly, Garmins data on him. Haha, Attention to detail there Dave!
Even Stevie Wonder could see he was dodgy as0 -
Ooh, ooh, anyone mentioned Julich yet?0
-
MartinGT wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Joelsim wrote:
Therein the difficulty lies. They probably pretty much know that they have a very very small pool to choose from. And he has retired.
See, that's not actually realism, that's cynicism.
Sky is actually chock full of British track riders who Brailsford had worked with, knew the power data etc. and had a reasonable assumption that they were clean.
Other than Rogers, Yates and Leinders, is there anyone else Sky shouldn't have signed as they were a bit too suspicious?
This made me chuckle, sorry Doc.
Yet the bloke signed JTL using, allegedly, Garmins data on him. Haha, Attention to detail there Dave!
Even Stevie Wonder could see he was dodgy as
A blind guy calling out performances based upon how they look?
Sounds like an initiative that your Clinic mates would approve of, to replace testing."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
didn't rayjay say he can call people out on how they look? Is he blind?0
-
It's quite astounding how any thread can end up talking about Sky and doping.
We are waaaaaaay off topic here now. And yes, I acknowledge my part.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Hey maca I was simply referring to BS saying most presume him innocent when the poll presume him guilty.
Edit. I just reread his post and it also seems to say most think he is guilty. Little confused now...
I'm not surprised, since I said neither.
I didn't pass any definitive judgement.
Which was kind of the point.
Master of pleasing all camps like a politician.
-
Got it TA. I havent read more than a few pages of the thread so I suppose ive missed a bit.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:-
Got it TA. I havent read more than a few pages of the thread so I suppose ive missed a bit.
Not really.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Damn, suckered back in thinking that 10+ pages in a day must have meant something had come to light! It has taken some surreal turns. From what I can work out:-
1. My display is playing up as apparently the thread is full of ostriches pretending doping doesn't exist and that Rogers is innocent. However, what I mainly see is that people saying Rogers is guilty either of doping intentionally or under strict liability but that contamination is a plausible explanation given known and reported problems with contaminated meat in China.
2. People like to use the suspiscion index to support their own viewpoint but without really knowing how this is used and ignoring obvious pointers that it isn't infallible as a stand alone document.
3. If two people post nonsense over and over again but it supports the view you've developed from narrow reading references they are right and everyone else has been deceived / buried their head in the sand.
4. WBT is being very generous in not providing the Freiburg links therefore avoiding making some of you look very foolish.
5. Iain has come out of the closet marked 'Sky Fanboi'
Anything I've missed?0 -
PBo wrote:didn't rayjay say he can call people out on how they look? Is he blind?
Do you do Stand up ? sh%% your really good look I am laughing
Any gigs/tour coming up? Perhaps a stint at the Leicester sq theatre? that's is some funky on the edge comedy sh$$ your are throwing out their. 0 -
They're, their (sic)0
-
PBo wrote:Pross wrote:
Anything I've missed?
Yup. The Freiburg affadavits.
Do you all remember the "inbetweeners" episode where the punch Simon in the balls every time he mentions carly? Can we punch people in the balls if they use the phrase "Freiburg Mick"
I've covered that in point 3, it looks like WBT is being kind and sparing your blushes by not supplying them. Unless.....no, it can't be that....I was going to say unless he can't find them as they don't exist but that's just silly and would destroy his argument and credibility.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Cioni is a worry. 2004 Giro and now he's a DS! :shock:
Another bulletin from The Clinic. Was that your source for the Rogers Freiburg smear and run you pulled upthread?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
This thread makes baby tapir sad.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
Read the whole quote. I said "Part" of the way forward for Pro Cycling.
I did not say Sky were perfect, they hired some people with a dodgy past and when they found out about this dodgy past they were sacked. I don't see you taking any teams to task who make a point of taking on ex dopers, and there are plenty to chose from. That must be because it has nowt to do with Sky.
So you think If all the Pro teams were to take a firm anti doping stance, and publicly state it, it would not help? :shock:0 -
mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
Read the whole quote. I said "Part" of the way forward for Pro Cycling.
I did not say Sky were perfect, they hired some people with a dodgy past and when they found out about this dodgy past they were sacked. I don't see you taking any teams to task who make a point of taking on ex dopers, and there are plenty to chose from. That must be because it has nowt to do with Sky.
So you think If all the Pro teams were to take a firm anti doping stance, and publicly state it, it would not help? :shock:
Very much so Mike 6.
Sky, I would imagine, have clauses in their contract which state that if you dope or are proven to have doped you're out the door. Perhaps there was even a declaration within the contract to that extent so when you are looking to hire someone and they sign on the dotted line there is an assumption that both parties are capable of performing the contract.
So if we take Sean Yates as an example, and bear in mind that Sky was set up when the lid was still on the LA doping scandal, he signed on the dotted line making the necessary declarations. When the wheel comes off and confessions and books are flying around (none of which I understand prove any thing against him but implicate him?) I imagine he is called in to DB's office and given the chance to cough it up and leave quietly with a few quid in his pocket or run the gauntlet and probably leave with nothing. Other teams would have given a gallic shrug of the shoulders and it would have been business as usual without hard evidence. Brailsford "let people go" when they weren't as good as their contractual promise. Good for him, he's got a policy and he sticks by it.
Apologies if the Yates example is a bad one.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:This thread makes baby tapir sad.
Tell the baby tapir that it is only 7 days until the Tour de San Luis (he can count the days, hours, minutes and seconds here http://www.toursanluis.com/)
And 8 days until the TDU.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
Read the whole quote. I said "Part" of the way forward for Pro Cycling.
I did not say Sky were perfect, they hired some people with a dodgy past and when they found out about this dodgy past they were sacked. I don't see you taking any teams to task who make a point of taking on ex dopers, and there are plenty to chose from. That must be because it has nowt to do with Sky.
So you think If all the Pro teams were to take a firm anti doping stance, and publicly state it, it would not help? :shock:
Very much so Mike 6.
Sky, I would imagine, have clauses in their contract which state that if you dope or are proven to have doped you're out the door. Perhaps there was even a declaration within the contract to that extent so when you are looking to hire someone and they sign on the dotted line there is an assumption that both parties are capable of performing the contract.
So if we take Sean Yates as an example, and bear in mind that Sky was set up when the lid was still on the LA doping scandal, he signed on the dotted line making the necessary declarations. When the wheel comes off and confessions and books are flying around (none of which I understand prove any thing against him but implicate him?) I imagine he is called in to DB's office and given the chance to cough it up and leave quietly with a few quid in his pocket or run the gauntlet and probably leave with nothing. Other teams would have given a gallic shrug of the shoulders and it would have been business as usual without hard evidence. Brailsford "let people go" when they weren't as good as their contractual promise. Good for him, he's got a policy and he sticks by it.
Apologies if the Yates example is a bad one.
Don't get me wrong I respect DB massively and am not anti Sky. And yes of course it would help if all teams were to adopt a policy such as this, for sure. The only thing I will say about Sky is it's not exciting to base races on stats to this extent, but I fully understand why they do it. It's not great for the fans.
I did also state that when some staff were hired then it was before much that has come out, the landscape has changed.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
Read the whole quote. I said "Part" of the way forward for Pro Cycling.
I did not say Sky were perfect, they hired some people with a dodgy past and when they found out about this dodgy past they were sacked. I don't see you taking any teams to task who make a point of taking on ex dopers, and there are plenty to chose from. That must be because it has nowt to do with Sky.
So you think If all the Pro teams were to take a firm anti doping stance, and publicly state it, it would not help? :shock:
Very much so Mike 6.
Sky, I would imagine, have clauses in their contract which state that if you dope or are proven to have doped you're out the door. Perhaps there was even a declaration within the contract to that extent so when you are looking to hire someone and they sign on the dotted line there is an assumption that both parties are capable of performing the contract.
So if we take Sean Yates as an example, and bear in mind that Sky was set up when the lid was still on the LA doping scandal, he signed on the dotted line making the necessary declarations. When the wheel comes off and confessions and books are flying around (none of which I understand prove any thing against him but implicate him?) I imagine he is called in to DB's office and given the chance to cough it up and leave quietly with a few quid in his pocket or run the gauntlet and probably leave with nothing. Other teams would have given a gallic shrug of the shoulders and it would have been business as usual without hard evidence. Brailsford "let people go" when they weren't as good as their contractual promise. Good for him, he's got a policy and he sticks by it.
Apologies if the Yates example is a bad one.
Don't get me wrong I respect DB massively and am not anti Sky. And yes of course it would help if all teams were to adopt a policy such as this, for sure. The only thing I will say about Sky is it's not exciting to base races on stats to this extent, but I fully understand why they do it. It's not great for the fans.
I did also state that when some staff were hired then it was before much that has come out, the landscape has changed.
Fair points Joelsim. Although I on the one hand applaud DB for what he's done for British cycling I can't help but think it is the cycling equivalent of England's dull hoof it down the field approach to footy to the big lad up front (which is far less successful in any event).
Just like we don't play the beautiful game particularly well we don't cycle with great panache either.
I hold on to the image of the continental teams training by going out for a 4/5 hour ride broken up by a coffee stop where they watch the ladieees go by from behind their Oakleys. then when the racing season arrives they all ride like Nibs.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
Read the whole quote. I said "Part" of the way forward for Pro Cycling.
I did not say Sky were perfect, they hired some people with a dodgy past and when they found out about this dodgy past they were sacked. I don't see you taking any teams to task who make a point of taking on ex dopers, and there are plenty to chose from. That must be because it has nowt to do with Sky.
So you think If all the Pro teams were to take a firm anti doping stance, and publicly state it, it would not help? :shock:
Very much so Mike 6.
Sky, I would imagine, have clauses in their contract which state that if you dope or are proven to have doped you're out the door. Perhaps there was even a declaration within the contract to that extent so when you are looking to hire someone and they sign on the dotted line there is an assumption that both parties are capable of performing the contract.
So if we take Sean Yates as an example, and bear in mind that Sky was set up when the lid was still on the LA doping scandal, he signed on the dotted line making the necessary declarations. When the wheel comes off and confessions and books are flying around (none of which I understand prove any thing against him but implicate him?) I imagine he is called in to DB's office and given the chance to cough it up and leave quietly with a few quid in his pocket or run the gauntlet and probably leave with nothing. Other teams would have given a gallic shrug of the shoulders and it would have been business as usual without hard evidence. Brailsford "let people go" when they weren't as good as their contractual promise. Good for him, he's got a policy and he sticks by it.
Apologies if the Yates example is a bad one.
So why is Cioni now a DS?
Was he clean at the 2004 Giro?
He had some funny business going on with his hematocrit did he not?0
