-
I've seen him accused of that before, but he just backs himself up with the 'i'm a scientist argument, I'm not biased and how dare you accuse me of such a thing' argument. I've pulled him up on how you can prove a negative, and also on the question of why Froome blossomed at age 26, but he's not very interested in answering those.
He's far more engaging on subjects he's not entirely made his mind up on, but I fear once he's decided he's right, he's decided it for good.Side note - Tucker has bemoaned Sky's PR so much in the past couple of seasons. Apparently having fluff pieces about their riders is a doping indicator, as if fluff pieces about any high profile athlete have never existed before Sky came along. the ST's David Walsh, who helped expose Armstrong as a doper, has come in for repeated and vicious criticism for a while, and not just from Tucker, but from all the trolls. It's again a case of if x=y, then y=dope for them all. Again, I may be wrong, but I'd put money on Walsh, who risked his job to expose Armstrong, on being honest and having integrity enough not to promote a Sky lie. Anonymous tweeters adamant there's a lie to uncover, not so much.
You are reading a single comment by @bashthebox and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
bashthebox
I think if you want to push back at Tucker use AndyP's confirmation bias accusation. I had to look it up but it's compelling.