Eldron Posted March 19, 2018 Share Damn! That was an all "social media " interview - awesome breakfast television! One smart woman, one dim woman and two dolts in between. Body language, admiration for Armstrong and it must be true because David Millar said so. Holyshibbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boab Posted March 19, 2018 Share Damn! That was an all "social media " interview - awesome breakfast television! One smart woman, one dim woman and two dolts in between. Body language, admiration for Armstrong and it must be true because David Millar said so. Holyshibbles. Which one was the smart woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted March 19, 2018 Share Which one was the smart woman?The athlete they interviewed - Sharran somebody or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boab Posted March 19, 2018 Share The athlete they interviewed - Sharran somebody or other. Sharon Davies - swimmer. Wasn't v impressed with her. That whole programme, and anything with Piers Morgan in it alas, is about sensationalism. I though David W at least had some justification for his view on Wiggo. Obviously the missing sports medicine interviewee phoned in sick, maybe with asthma....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted March 19, 2018 Share Sharon Davies - swimmer. Wasn't v impressed with her. That whole programme, and anything with Piers Morgan in it alas, is about sensationalism. I though David W at least had some justification for his view on Wiggo. Obviously the missing sports medicine interviewee phoned in sick, maybe with asthma....... Sadly modern media seems to be more and more about sensationalism. Facts be damned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewbacca Posted March 19, 2018 Share Or, if you read some sensationalist modern journalism, it often spouts opinion as fact by stating an opinion and following it up with the word 'Fact!'... I have seen this prevalent in quite a few local articles in the cycling magazines and interviews lately... it irks my boggle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonus Posted March 19, 2018 Share Or, if you read some sensationalist modern journalism, it often spouts opinion as fact by stating an opinion and following it up with the word 'Fact!'... I have seen this prevalent in quite a few local articles in the cycling magazines and interviews lately... it irks my boggleFact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boab Posted March 19, 2018 Share Or, if you read some sensationalist modern journalism, it often spouts opinion as fact by stating an opinion and following it up with the word 'Fact!'... I have seen this prevalent in quite a few local articles in the cycling magazines and interviews lately... it irks my boggle No different from most Fridays round here.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosmonooit Posted March 19, 2018 Share Not a Piers Morgan fan but a good bit, and I don't have a problem with Walsh, considering he pinned his colours to the Lance the Doper mast back in the day of many a gob-smacked believer. He also did a stint 'embedded' with Team Sky to prove how clean they were. But I get back to this question, which for me defines the whole shabang: IF such TUE's were not supposed to be kept secret, would they have still got The Wig all doped up "legally" before those Grand Tours? They probably knew it would be ethically indefensible BUT they counted on those treatments being secret and not public knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaper Posted March 22, 2018 Share Tour de France organisers tight-lipped over reports saying Chris Froome may be blocked from racinghttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2018/03/21/tour-de-france-organisers-tight-lipped-despite-reports-claiming/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted March 22, 2018 Share Tour de France organisers tight-lipped over reports saying Chris Froome may be blocked from racinghttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2018/03/21/tour-de-france-organisers-tight-lipped-despite-reports-claiming/I honestly wish they would stop the whole..we want this resolved as fast as possible crap...they are the ones stalling. The only reason for the delay is to let Froome ride the Giro and possibly TDF and then say oops negligent and take the ban from day of verdict..that way he keeps all results.. ASO have a nice clause that has something to do about the image if cycling and event so they could deny him entry and would be within their rights..the same way Froome is within his rights to continue riding..[emoji6] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velouria Posted March 27, 2018 Share But I get back to this question, which for me defines the whole shabang: IF such TUE's were not supposed to be kept secret, would they have still got The Wig all doped up "legally" before those Grand Tours? They probably knew it would be ethically indefensible BUT they counted on those treatments being secret and not public knowledge.Exactly. Especially given their whole "new generation", "marginal gains", "no known dopers on our team" schpeel. If you want to be seen as transparent, the best way to do that is to operate in a transparent manner. Submit your rider data to Bike Pure. Sign up to the MPCC. Conduct your business out in the open. If you can't do that, then you're probably doing something that you think others won't approve of, and while not illegal, those things are probably morally and ethically dodgy! In related news, I see the new, new, new defence is to go after the tests and show how unreliable they are. Not all the tests, just the tests that Froome failed. The tests that Froome passed are super reliable and should never be questioned. And all those other cyclists who have passed the Salbutamol test must be worried, because the results are super unreliable, but only in one case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pista Posted March 27, 2018 Share Tour de France organisers tight-lipped over reports saying Chris Froome may be blocked from racinghttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2018/03/21/tour-de-france-organisers-tight-lipped-despite-reports-claiming/ Why just Froome?Sky as a team should be blocked from racing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted March 27, 2018 Share Why just Froome?Sky as a team should be blocked from racing.Why just SKY, what about all the other riders/Teams that are currently under investigations which haven't been leaked. Hell, we could end up with a Conti team winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plentipotential Posted March 27, 2018 Share Lets be honest, between cycling, cricket, the Russians, every other sport with money and the as yet "have not been caught" who can you believe in? It's becoming a joke, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted March 27, 2018 Share Lets be honest, between cycling, cricket, the Russians, every other sport with money and the as yet "have not been caught" who can you believe in? It's becoming a joke, really.Who cares about them, we are after SKY and only SKY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.