Other Sports
Simple idea.... If you believe somebody is a cheat, post the evidence why you believe this theory.
WTF are you on about ducks. Are you so stupid.
You have produced zero evidence that sky are cheating, yet break the law in claiming they are.
Gordi why jump to name calling and insults at the first chance. Is it because you have zero evidence to back up your argument?
Come on Gordi, rather than acting like a 5 year old calling anybody who disagrees with your theory stupid, just act like an adult and explain what evidence you have to back up your theory.
The article you were wittering on about with your childish duck talk suggested Sky are not cheats.
You claimed it was disappointing he defended sky.
Anybody reading your posts is likely to believe you are accusing Sky of cheating.
Calling people names rather than producing any evidence to support your theory is a pretty stupid way of presenting a theory.
So Gordi, don't be so stupid, grow up. Present the evidence for your theory.
This journalist wrote that in his opinion Sky were not cheats. Why would anybody be disappointed with this journalist?
Why would a sane person resort to childish name calling as soon as anybody disagreed with the duck story.
It just so happens that neither you nor I seen to be able to think of any.
Jul 21, 2013 -- 7:01PM, DHB wrote:
@gordi It's patently clear what you were suggesting.
You could say.. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it usually is a duck. 
Froome and Wiggins sudden improvement from average road riders to Tour Kings is comical and more suspicious than Armstrongs. Wiggins in particular spent much of his road career in obscurity at such well known teams as Linda McCartney, Francaise des Jeux and Cofidis achieving a grand total of zilch......
suddenly in 2010 at the age of 30 he begins climbing mountains like a goat.
Walsh spent much of his repetitive books lecturing anyone who would listen that "Armstrongs behaviour" was enough to convict him yet will defend Wiggins who proclaims Paul Kimmage is a w**ker for raising suspicions of the hiring of Geert Leanders.
(We are supposed to believe Sky hired a doctor from a confessed doping outfit without checking his CV
)Journo writing in Murdoch rag defends Murdoch team ? Is there any 1.01 left ?
Yep, sadly he has no Lance Armstrong to milk to sustain his career anymore
Ive seen decades of cycling, i'm just not naive enough to believe because a few British riders start winning the sport is suddenly clean. BTW dont think i think badly of them. They do as the majority have always done.....got some much needed "Support". Froome was the best rider and he deserves the plaudits
Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:50PM, Diamond_Joe_Quimby wrote:
Feel free to explain then......Ive seen decades of cycling, i'm just not naive enough to believe because a few British riders start winning the sport is suddenly clean. BTW dont think i think badly of them. They do as the majority have always done.....got some much needed "Support". Froome was the best rider and he deserves the plaudits
What's your theory some sort of wonder drug that has tested the time since Lance was in his pomp up until now, which no other team has got their hands on?
Jul 22, 2013 -- 2:53PM, gordi wrote:
sorry i didnt make myself clear. how people can defend pro cycling. has there been a clean tour in the last 25 years. doubt it. but im not SURE. Lance armstrong said he could not have won any of his tours if he did not dope. what does that tell us about the sport? but as diamond said you cant blame them, how can a clean cyclist compete with a doper. if he doesnt compete he d
Armstrong has been trying to justify why he was a cheat. While you can probably agree with him in what he says there I wouldn't be using him as a yardstick.
But the OP is fair to question Walsh as he has completely ignored Froome's overnight transformation and ascent times at this year's TDF. This is the same Walsh who called out Contador as doping based on his ascent of the Verbier in 2009 ('I know what times they do up that mountain'), not just questioning the performance, not saying it was suspicious but straight out accusation of doping.
The silence from Walsh in not even questioning these times is deafening and if he did want to beg the question, the newspaper wouldn't even print it IMO. Maybe he did want to, who knows?
I think that if Walsh had something concrete this time he would leave the ST and write about it, I just don't think he has and he is older and has a job to lose this time, the ST prob wouldn't print anything negative anyway. He had nothing to lose in accusing LA and was previously prepared to accuse based on circumstantial evidence, not this time tho.
Jul 23, 2013 -- 1:01PM, gordi wrote:
Lance armstrong probably the worlds most famous doper. and you wouldnt use him as a yardstick. may i ask you who would you use?
He's the worlds most famous doper fighting million dollar lawsuits and trying to salvage anything he can. If you are using Armstrong as a source now knowing his history and his current situation..
Jul 23, 2013 -- 3:27PM, lurka wrote:
Maybe Sky are clean, I personally don't believe they are. But the OP is fair to question Walsh as he has completely ignored Froome's overnight transformation and ascent times at this year's TDF. This is the same Walsh who called out Contador as doping based on his ascent of the Verbier in 2009 ('I know what times they do up that mountain'), not just questioning the performance, not saying it was suspicious but straight out accusation of doping. The silence from Walsh in not even questioning these times is deafening and if he did want to beg the question, the newspaper wouldn't even print it IMO. Maybe he did want to, who knows? I think that if Walsh had something concrete this time he would leave the ST and write about it, I just don't think he has and he is older and has a job to lose this time, the ST prob wouldn't print anything negative anyway. He had nothing to lose in accusing LA and was previously prepared to accuse based on circumstantial evidence, not this time tho.
Walsh cost the Times a lot of cash by outing Armstrong. The conspiracy theory about certain people keeping quiet because it is SKY and the Times is a Murdoch paper is just silly. The Times staff have written unfavourable comments to Murdoch inc many times before. As Walsh is the closest journalist to the SKY team, perhaps just maybe he is the best source?
Contador is and always has been known as a doper. It's hardly just the times he was creating that provided the evidence, he has a record of suspicion as long as Armstrong's. Arguably stronger evidence against Contador than Armstrong and it's only friendly doping agencies that have stopped him being banned.
Now none of us know if SKY are clean or dirty and you'd be naive if you had no doubt about anyone in pro cycling. It's healthy to wonder after what has gone before, but all the conspiracy theories read like David Icke. Personally I don't think what SKY are doing is unexpected or suspicious in the slightest given the track record.
simple question, please answer!
Jul 24, 2013 -- 1:51PM, gordi wrote:
cj i will ask you again, who would you use as a yardstick? we all know lance armstrongs history. as i said he probably the worlds most famous doper.simple question, please answer!
A yardstick for what? For the truth on doping? Most of the stuff thrown at SKY is people who believed in Armstrong against the evidence of doping, the fact that you still believe in what he says asks serious questions. He's now up to his eyes in lawsuits and you want me to believe in what he says?
I think Aromstrong is probably correct when he says you couldn't win it without doping when he was racing, but then if he is doped to the eyeballs and winning year on year then you can't disagree can you?
Did Lemond win without doping? I'd like to think so. Has every winner since 2011? There's a credible argument to be made. Do we know for sure? No. Did anyone win it clean between those times? I can't make an argument for anyone.
