Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
Sky are 100% clean. Fact. Until proven otherwise this is the truth and also a fact.
People can have their opinions, but thats all they are, opinions. They are worthless until they can be made real but hard facts. The fact is, nobody has any hard facts.
Case closed.0 -
So that means that "the fact is" is not a fact since "nobody has any"? Would that be a fact?optrexeyedrops wrote:Sky are 100% clean. Fact. Until proven otherwise this is the truth and also a fact.
People can have their opinions, but thats all they are, opinions. They are worthless until they can be made real but hard facts. The fact is, nobody has any hard facts.
Case closed.0 -
optrexeyedrops wrote:Sky are 100% clean. Fact. Until proven otherwise this is the truth and also a fact. ............................................ The fact is, nobody has any hard facts.
.
awesome contradiction0 -
optrexeyedrops wrote:Sky are 100% clean. Fact. Until proven otherwise this is the truth and also a fact.
People can have their opinions, but thats all they are, opinions. They are worthless until they can be made real but hard facts. The fact is, nobody has any hard facts.
Case closed.
There are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
optrexeyedrops wrote:Sky are 100% clean. Fact. Until proven otherwise this is the truth and also a fact.
People can have their opinions, but thats all they are, opinions. They are worthless until they can be made real but hard facts. The fact is, nobody has any hard facts.
Case closed.
If a fact is unknown, is it still a fact?It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
optrexeyedrops wrote:Sky are 100% clean. Fact. Until proven otherwise this is the truth and also a fact.
People can have their opinions, but thats all they are, opinions. They are worthless until they can be made real but hard facts. The fact is, nobody has any hard facts.
Case closed.
All I know is that I'm fact off with this thread.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:There are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
why are there no Unknown knowns then ?0 -
When an unknown fact becomes known, does it become fact? Or was the unknown fact, in fact, already a fact.BikeRadar Communities Manager0
-
Rumsfeld right? Epic idiot with corruption at his essence. Still not as bad as Cheney who IIRC shot one of his boss's donors in the face on a turkey shoot.Salsiccia1 wrote:optrexeyedrops wrote:Sky are 100% clean. Fact. Until proven otherwise this is the truth and also a fact.
People can have their opinions, but thats all they are, opinions. They are worthless until they can be made real but hard facts. The fact is, nobody has any hard facts.
Case closed.
There are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.0 -
CuthbertC wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Trivia time. Who said this? No cheating (Googling) please.The new cycling? "Nonsense, innovation has always been there. Think of it as shedding your skin. The snake gets a new skin, but underneath it remains the same snake. He takes his past and his problems along with him into the present. Now people think its all gone in one go. But that's not the case. I was recently asked to participate in a TV program titled: "How clean will the 2011 Tour be?" Now I'm really not going to participate in that."
Answer: Geert Leinders.
Interview date: April 2011 (yes, when he working at Sky).
A known doping doctor effectively calling out his own team.
Rest of the interview is here: wielrennen.startpagina.nl/prikbord/16069719/geert-leinders-was-bepalend-bij-rabobank
How is that calling out his own team?0 -
The fact is, you lot are still debating it with your thumbs up your backsides.
And you still know nothing.
Fact.
If you have 100% proof that Sky ARENT CLEAN, then prove it. Prove me wrong. Or better still, go to the The Times, tell David Walsh and he will print it for you.
No?
Thought not.
The keyboard cycling warriors on here absolutely crack me up, smoking their pipes, wearing their slippers, trying to outdo each other with their infinite wisdom of cycling and their witty put downs of others. But hey, you keep debating and w@nking each other off thinking you know it all.
lol..brilliant.0 -
That's what most people are saying but you aren't very articulate so the result is that you don't really get your point across that clearly.
Plus it is not a "fact" that Sky are or aren't doping. The only "fact" is that there is no evidence to suggest that they are. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, they are not doping.0 -
The sun'll come out tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow
There'll be sun...
Jay Z0 -
FocusZing wrote:The sun'll come out tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow
There'll be sun...
Jay Z
Rides for Team DiData?0 -
optrexeyedrops wrote:The fact is, you lot are still debating it with your thumbs up your backsides.
And you still know nothing.
Fact.
If you have 100% proof that Sky ARENT CLEAN, then prove it. Prove me wrong. Or better still, go to the The Times, tell David Walsh and he will print it for you.
No?
Thought not.
The keyboard cycling warriors on here absolutely crack me up, smoking their pipes, wearing their slippers, trying to outdo each other with their infinite wisdom of cycling and their witty put downs of others. But hey, you keep debating and w@nking each other off thinking you know it all.
lol..brilliant.
Didn't all this happen before in the LA thread? I wonder??0 -
optrexeyedrops wrote:The fact is, you lot are still debating it with your thumbs up your backsides.
And you still know nothing.
Fact.
If you have 100% proof that Sky ARENT CLEAN, then prove it. Prove me wrong. Or better still, go to the The Times, tell David Walsh and he will print it for you.
No?
Thought not.
The keyboard cycling warriors on here absolutely crack me up, smoking their pipes, wearing their slippers, trying to outdo each other with their infinite wisdom of cycling and their witty put downs of others. But hey, you keep debating and w@nking each other off thinking you know it all.
lol..brilliant.
Have you actually read any of this thread before storming in like a bull in a china shop?0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:CuthbertC wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Trivia time. Who said this? No cheating (Googling) please.The new cycling? "Nonsense, innovation has always been there. Think of it as shedding your skin. The snake gets a new skin, but underneath it remains the same snake. He takes his past and his problems along with him into the present. Now people think its all gone in one go. But that's not the case. I was recently asked to participate in a TV program titled: "How clean will the 2011 Tour be?" Now I'm really not going to participate in that."
Answer: Geert Leinders.
Interview date: April 2011 (yes, when he working at Sky).
A known doping doctor effectively calling out his own team.
Rest of the interview is here: wielrennen.startpagina.nl/prikbord/16069719/geert-leinders-was-bepalend-bij-rabobank
How is that calling out his own team?
Have you read the rest of the interview?0 -
CuthbertC wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:CuthbertC wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Trivia time. Who said this? No cheating (Googling) please.The new cycling? "Nonsense, innovation has always been there. Think of it as shedding your skin. The snake gets a new skin, but underneath it remains the same snake. He takes his past and his problems along with him into the present. Now people think its all gone in one go. But that's not the case. I was recently asked to participate in a TV program titled: "How clean will the 2011 Tour be?" Now I'm really not going to participate in that."
Answer: Geert Leinders.
Interview date: April 2011 (yes, when he working at Sky).
A known doping doctor effectively calling out his own team.
Rest of the interview is here: wielrennen.startpagina.nl/prikbord/16069719/geert-leinders-was-bepalend-bij-rabobank
How is that calling out his own team?
Have you read the rest of the interview?
Yes. He clearly says that teams like HTC and Sky have brought a different approach to cycling. Supports the view that Sky's approach has changed cycling.
Was there anything else?0 -
Seems to me that the only fact here is that Cuthbert is on the wrong forum.
Again.0 -
dish_dash wrote:CuthbertC wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:CuthbertC wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Trivia time. Who said this? No cheating (Googling) please.The new cycling? "Nonsense, innovation has always been there. Think of it as shedding your skin. The snake gets a new skin, but underneath it remains the same snake. He takes his past and his problems along with him into the present. Now people think its all gone in one go. But that's not the case. I was recently asked to participate in a TV program titled: "How clean will the 2011 Tour be?" Now I'm really not going to participate in that."
Answer: Geert Leinders.
Interview date: April 2011 (yes, when he working at Sky).
A known doping doctor effectively calling out his own team.
Rest of the interview is here: wielrennen.startpagina.nl/prikbord/16069719/geert-leinders-was-bepalend-bij-rabobank
How is that calling out his own team?
Have you read the rest of the interview?
Yes. He clearly says that teams like HTC and Sky have brought a different approach to cycling. Supports the view that Sky's approach has changed cycling.
Was there anything else?
He questions whether the different approach of HTC and Sky is 'better' in the very next paragraph:Whether that is better? "What do you do with Philippe Gilbert? He is with Omega Pharma-Lotto in the old model and quite successful in recent weeks. And where was HTC? Wonderful business model, all new, brought in many new things from outside of cycling. But I have not seen them, they were never pronouncedly present.
Difference in culture?After almost 25 years as team doctor in the traditional European cycling culture he now faces the acclaimed Anglo-Saxon approach of British Team Sky. "There are more similarities than differences."
Personal doping doctors:If a rider feels he must have someone like that [i.e. a personal sports doctor], then he should look outside the team. For the image of the sponsor that is a good thing. Whether it is good for the health of the cyclist, is something else. "
'Doping-free sport':"Look at the Giro: plenty of mountains that go over 2,000 meters. Sport is increasingly about spectacle. The balance between higher spectacle and clean sport is becoming untenable. It is not marketable that you have a squad every year that is cleaner, but climbing higher every year with speeds up.
Zero tolerance:"Then there was a product [epo, Ed.] that one could not detect. I was there, the product was there. I cannot erase it. I've always thought carefully about how to deal with it. That's the only thing you can do. Zero tolerance is politics, it has nothing to do with cycling."
New generation and innovation:The new cycling? "Nonsense, innovation has always been there. Think of it as shedding your skin. The snake gets a new skin, but underneath it remains the same snake. He takes his past and his problems along with him into the present. Now people think its all gone in one go. But that's not the case.0 -
Our sky is not clear round here, reckon it'll rain soon. That's first bit is fact, second is a guess.
Just saying...0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Our sky is not clear round here, reckon it'll rain soon. That's first bit is fact, second is a guess.
Just saying...
But its a guess based on experience so it has become an informed guess. That bit might actually be a fact.
Generally speaking when I look out the window and see all the signs of a coming downpour I correctly judge. Its not actually a fact that its raining at the time but the indications of an informed observer predict it. Anyone wholooks out the window sees all the signs and has experience of being rained on knows it. And humans are good at making assumptions, very quickly bringing all the circumstances experience knowledge and context to bare to make a decision.
We dont always get it quite 100% but on the whole we nail it. every time we cross the road, speak to people drive the car, its subconcious and were very very good at it.
The same applies to deciding if an athlete is doping or not though we might impose conditions that suspend effective decision making like "i dont want to believe that; innocent until proven guilty" or "I need Armstrong Ullrich Miller, Simpson, Armistead or Sky " to be clean i have my dreams Ive invested heavily in the image of clean athletes and sport
I hope Armistead and Sky are clean I really do.0 -
Fair comment but what's the equivalent of the thick black rain clouds in this situation? Or are you working using the assumption (which I've always found to be correct) that no matter how warm and long a heatwave we have it always rains in the end?0
-
Pross wrote:Fair comment but what's the equivalent of the thick black rain clouds in this situation? ?
Well they are third in the UCI team standings ..... obviously if you are 3rd you must be doping because you are trying hard not to win so no one expects it
Sky also have a whopping 2 riders in the top 20 UCI individual standings ..... the lack of their riders in the top 20 clearly shows doping .... AND Froome is number 2 .... again trying to cover up clearly
It all points to doping
:roll:
Seriously if Sky are doping, they are doing a bad job of it, because they arnt winning .... unless Mov or -ex tinkoff were doping more, in which case sky need bigger needles0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:The same applies to deciding if an athlete is doping or not though we might impose conditions that suspend effective decision making like "i dont want to believe that; innocent until proven guilty" or "I need Armstrong Ullrich Miller, Simpson, Armistead or Sky " to be clean i have my dreams Ive invested heavily in the image of clean athletes and sport
I hope Armistead and Sky are clean I really do.
Thing is I don't feel I've invested much at all in the sport being clean (partly because we know it isn't, due to the fact riders keep getting caught...).
I also hope Armitstead and Sky are clean but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it if they turn out not to be.
I actually think the opposite - many people have invested so much in the image of dirty athletes and sport that they can't countenance the idea of clean athletes, to the extent they don't seem to care about the actual racing at all.
Unfortunately some people seem able to only see in black and white: all athletes are doping (especially Sky who are super-doping), and anyone who suggests otherwise must therefore be convinced all athletes are clean (and also be a Sky fanboy who worships David Brailsford, sorry Brailsfraud).0 -
It was a dirty job but someone had to plumb the dark doping depths and Gonzo was that man.
Meanwhile Michelle Cound realised life was much better when she deleted her Twitter.
Correlation is not causation.0 -
It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
-
Sagan says hello
He wants to know why he's not mentioned in the doping chat, seeing as he's the dominant rider of the ageIt's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
David Millar is lined up to present a documentary on Michael Rasmussen
And with that, now it's warmed up and the clouds have cleared I'm off up the Galibier. Toodles.Correlation is not causation.0
