I am thanks. Have you read kimmage and his thoughts on it? Let's turn this around. If froome and Wiggins were two Russians who had dominated the sport for the last six years what would the british press be saying now?
For me it's just more questions than answers, because of claimed pollution increases we the general public are forever blamed and told it's our cars and their emissions that are the main cause, yet cars are so much more fuel efficient and less polluting now. Like plastic, it's all well and good me paying more to get milk delivered in glass bottles but when more than half the world use plastic for almost everything and then just chuck it away. So what's the point?
I am not a member of the British press and have never defended or attacked the British press what is your point? I am specifically commenting on this thread as a whole (Not you I thought the article you posted was well written) about how people are innocent until proven guilty. Do you disagree with that principle? I can provide evidence and quote all the posts that go against this principle? Please quote my post where I mentioned the British press, and I attacked them or defended them. Are you refering to Paul Kimmage? If so which specific article? I've read a number, but I am not personally a cyclist I am semi pro in other sports that are very similar and as an asthmatic who has reached a reasonably high level (One below professionals who earn a **** load of money and I get paid bugger all from sport) my knowledge on that subject is reasonably good! I take a number of things, all of which are legal and within rules and fully disclosed. None of which makes me a cheat, and to be called that I need to be proven to be guilty which neither Froome or Wiggins have been. So we are relying on speculation without the full facts. In life we should not judge others until we have the full facts in front of us. Admittedly I am probably preaching to the wrong audience....
You are probably right (About the press, I have no views on this) but does that mean we should complete do away with the principle of innocent before proven guilty? I am not claiming that's what you said but actually interested in your views on people being called cheats before they have actually been proven to be guilty.
Are we to believe the Wigster had such savage asthma during the TDF that he was on deaths door and needed this last chance saloon medication yet somehow managed to win? We could just look at his medical records, as it will all be documented there. Then we will see off he's innocent or not.
So no comment on my point about innocent until proven guilty? Glad to see you agree with me. I never defended Lance Armstrong, nor have I defended Froome or Wiggins. I defend the principle innocent until proven guilty. Lance Armstrong has been proven guilty you have the right to call him a cheat. Like I said I don't spend that much of my time discussing cycling so I don't remember ever really defending him. If I did it was because he was innocent until proven guilty. I don't get what you disagree with.... The fact I disagree with speculation or that I am trying to given two British athletes the benefit of the doubt and the right to a fair trial? Or do you just disagree with me because you always disagree with me?
If you disagree with speculation don't post or tell others what to do on here. We can all post what are our thoughts on it without your permission.
When you look at the gruellng stages of La Tour I find it really hard to Believe getting through it without medicinal aid. I' also pretty certain that quite a few have won it and never been caught. Eddy Mercx springs to mind he destroyed the opposition
I don’t care if he’s broken the specific rules or not, shipping his special ‘asthma treatment’ by mysterious courier to a foreign country is dodgy as **** and if a foreigner was doing it there’s nobody who would think it was innocent.
That's a fine principle and I think most folk subscribe to it, but this whole matter has received extreme scrutiny by highly impartial investigators. I think there is plenty for folk to get their heads around and form a reasoned opinion.
I would have thought those genuine asthmatics would be a little pissed off if they thought non sufferers were using inhalers to open up their airways and gulping down a bigger lung full of air and as a consequence gaining an advantage.
Again, this is bollocks. You wilfully keep away from the circumstance and mismanagement and focus on the need for the drug - something others aren't doing. By the way, stop shoving your opinion on us...
However much I want to disagree you, I may have been slightly forceful in my views..... Should i resort to petty insults now? I think that's how you win an debate on this forum! I know I should just ignore your post and pretend you aren't right and I'm wrong. I just think society in general is going away from the principle of innocent until proven guilty and jumping on bandwagons without a full and fair 'trial'. I also focused on the area which I know most about rather than pretend I fully understand the other areas. I may have gone slightly off topic but I still stand by my views that until they are actually found guilty of cheating then they are innocent of it. But feel free to have your own view.... as long as it is the same as mine. Doesn't bother me, mainly as I don't know the full circumstances. If he is proven to be guilty and that is exactly what he is doing then of course I would be. My point is that asthmatics can indeed be very successful athletes and sportsman. Nobody? I believe you are wrong. Until they are proven guilty they are innocent, and therefore I would.
But, as I asked, why are they more likely to be asthmatics than they were years ago? Suddenly asthmatics make it to the top. Seems very strange. Is your area of knowledge reading what others have said?
I haven't calld you rude names, or thrown petty insults at you, I've simply said that, IMO, the basis of your argument and sense of injustice is bollocks (if the word bollocks offends you then you really are on the wrong board), which it is. You are the one not dealing with the facts of the topic or the majority of posts on this thread that relate to it. Forming a strong opinion on something like this, from extremely strong circumstantial evidence and abject failures to adequately fulfil their management responsibility and provide evidence that would counter the accusation, is exactly why they are being damned by so many level headed commentators.
