When did it start for you?

Schmidthouse

My own two cents worth.

Most of the discussions/arguments I read on these forums I attribute to people’s opinions. I enjoy reading these and while I may not agree with them all I don’t take it personally if my opinions clash with others.

Recently I wrote a letter and posted it on here and used terms like “we” as in the cycling community – this appeared to agitate a few people.

In my own humble opinion:
1 Do I think L.A doped – I honestly don’t know. I hope in my heart of hearts he didn’t as I am a both a cyclist and a survivor (two weeks ago I just had another tumour removed from my right cheek) and I did use and still use L.A as a bit of a magnet to help me get back onto the bike.
2. Do I take it personally when professional cyclists dope – yes I do. For a multitude of reasons one of which is the fact that I love the sport and I have since I first got put onto a peewee BMX 35 years ago.
3. Did my partner and I enjoy travelling from Australia to France and spending a month following the Tour this year – bloody oath we did. Did idea of the riders doping stop us from going – nope. Did I enjoy it when I found out that a certain Italian tested positive – yes I did. Will doping stop us from attending next years Tour Down Under (or more TdF’s) – no it won’t.
4. Opinions are like a-holes; everybody has one.

Anyway – back to more happy forum reading for me and the wish that we could organise a huge group discussion during a perfect ride somewhere - or over a beer.

Cheers.

Patrick1.0

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I think if you read some of the post by a variety of people you'll find that there is plenty of name calling, insulting language, lots of berating, and wild acquisitions about riders,
race organizers, and other various cycling officials on this site. But if I say something about someone who is on this forum, well, that's "disrespect". You can be as disrespectful as you like as long as it's not about someone on this site???

Who's acquiring something?

Dennis, have you considered opinions people hold may be formed based on publically available evidence? Some have different interpretations of things but that stimulates debate. For example, I don't trust Columbia the team when I put various pieces together but many people on the site are big supporters. I don't think they're idiots - I've got an opinion, which I might change my mind on (after all, changing your mind when you get evidence is a strength) if something new comes to light. It doesn't keep me awake at night though.

As someone put it a while ago, argue the point not the man.

You must just be trying to wind us up.

"....argue the point not the man". I quote a few of your posts.

".....repellent republican" in reference to G.W. Bush
".....seriously WTF" in reference to Pat McQuaid
"....is he a complete idiot" again in ref. to McQuaid

Those are right to the point, not the man.
But it's OK because those people aren't on the forum and have no feelings.

Dennis Noward

Geez, if somebody, as the head of a big, big organisation, makes a big, big boo boo when it comes to an issue as big as doping in professional cycling, people calling him an idiot, whilst it might be the wrong thing to say, is not exactly all that unexpected.

Just think about this Dennis. One week he says: "we're going to do everything we can to catch these dope cheats!" And then the next week turned around and said: "Na, I don't like that retrospective testing thing, it might catch a few too many of the cheats..."

blazing_saddles

Now, this is a bit different.

So: How does one argue one's opinion, indeed need to argue one's opinion, if restricted to undeniable corroborated facts?
This philosophy doesn't even allow for a different interpretation of information.
Begs the question, what is one to do on a forum, designed to stimulate debate, but is straightjacketed by allowing only established and accepted views?

When Iain argues that Pat McQuaid is an idiot, it is an example of when the point is the man.
They cannot be seperated. His key role in cycling's future must bring his administration into question. It is a central issue to the ardent cycling fan.
Is this subject to be banned due to any offence it might cause to man most of us are unlikely to meet? Is he now "bullet proof" from the criticism of those he ultimately serves?

For example: Iain's opinion is based upon his interpretation of Mcquaid's actions and words, as there are no absolute proofs.
Forums, all over the net, are dead, if we have to adopt this, as our overriding criteria.
Seems too, that freedom of speech, becomes a thing of the past.

Jez mon

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Now, this is a bit different.

So: How does one argue one's opinion, indeed need to argue one's opinion, if restricted to undeniable corroborated facts?
This philosophy doesn't even allow for a different interpretation of information.
Begs the question, what is one to do on a forum, designed to stimulate debate, but is straightjacketed by allowing only established and accepted views?

When Iain argues that Pat McQuaid is an idiot, it is an example of when the point is the man.
They cannot be seperated. His key role in cycling's future must bring his administration into question. It is a central issue to the ardent cycling fan.
Is this subject to be banned due to any offence it might cause to man most of us are unlikely to meet? Is he now "bullet proof" from the criticism of those he ultimately serves?

For example: Iain's opinion is based upon his interpretation of Mcquaid's actions and words, as there are no absolute proofs.
Forums, all over the net, are dead, if we have to adopt this, as our overriding criteria.
Seems too, that freedom of speech, becomes a thing of the past.

Good post.

I have to say, at times I wonder if Dennis is being totally sincere, or if he is just prodding until he gets a reaction.

It also seems to me that it's complete rubbish that you can't judge someone without knowing them personally. At the end of the day, your actions can say more about you as a person then your social interactions. I never went hill climbing with Hitler, I never munched dinner with Mao and I never had a lazy Sunday of banter with Stalin. Yet, I'm quite happy to judge them as BAD people. In fact, not knowing them at all allows me to be objective about them.

disgruntledgoat

Jez mon wrote:

I never went hill climbing with Hitler

Lucky you. Wheelsucker.

DavMartinR

See racing season is over.

And baiting season has just began??

Well done Dennis with your loaded question When did you start hating Lance.

Only to shot people down if they give an opinion because they don't know him? Very clever.

You can't have the ying without the yang? If your going to ask about hate what about the love?
So when did you fall in love with Lance?

Because you must know him? I'm sure you wouldn't start a thread about somebody you don't know and without their consent? Think of their feelings???

Moomaloid

Looking through the options, i don't think there is one for me to vote for. I'm from the Lemond generation. It was his '89 win that really turned me onto the sport. But yeah, as a teenager Armstrong was a hero. His return from Cancer is undeniably an incredible achievement, ney on Miracle!

But, since he retired, the more i heard the rumours, it made me want to study the evidence and arguments. And the more ive read, the more it points a use of POD's. If the truth be told, i hope upon hope that he comes back, wipes the floor with everyone and is proved beyond doubt to be riding clean. But i just can't see it happening.

He broke my heart as a cycling fan, and this is why i totally understand everyones arguments for and against. Hate doesn;t come into it, but disappointment? Definitely!

Bikerbaboon

Jez mon wrote:

Sunday of banter with Stalin. Yet, I'm quite happy to judge them as BAD people. In fact, not knowing them at all allows me to be objective about them.

Bit harsh to call stalin a bad person. His sweaping and harsh reforms in the ussr, allowed it to have the tank building might to just over power the german offensive that was stuck in hte mud..... pulling forces away from france allowing the allied forces an easyer fight in france.. effectivly ending the war quicker.... He did kill alot of the pople in his own country. ( road of bones is a fine example.)

I will always say you cant judge anyone till you have walked a mile( or ridden) in his/her shoes.

unclemalc

Bikerbaboon wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Bit harsh to call stalin a bad person. quote]

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Who do YOU consider 'a bad person' then??

Sorry Dennis, this really belongs somewhere else, but I just had to ask...

aracer

7) When I realized that all I had to do to get the 100th post on a thread was to hate Lance.