Bob Roll v the UCI

2

Comments

  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    Moray Gub wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.
    So when was the sport of professional cycling destroyed then ? Must have missed it myself but if you can point in me in the right direction as to when it exactly happened and why the sport is atill going on despite being em um em ............destroyed.
    You need to be replying to Iain, not me, and he wasn't arguing that doping had destroyed sport. Rather he was arguing that tackling doping would 'destroy' the sport ... :roll:
    iainf72 wrote:
    'I'm not a fan of Pat really, but he's between a rock and a hard place. If he tackles the doping problems head on and publically he will destroy the sport.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Pontarlier Pete wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    Everyone here knows there's a doping problem, but we're all still watching.

    But how many more have turned off because of doping, and how many of us have less interest than we would otherwise?

    I have to agree with Bernie. What's the point in attracting new fans when as soon as they know anything about the sport they see it's riddled with doping? Most will then just switch off again. If the problem was tackled head on, we would have a couple of years of pain, then the sport could rebuild in and turn to attracting new fans with a better chance of retaining them in the future. We had this opportunity after 1998, but it was wasted.

    See that McQuaid's brother got a job with Oakley? I'm sure that was with a glowing CV and great interview, and nothing to do with Pat's Texan friend.


    From what i can see Cycling still seems to be popular in the areas where its always been popular the forthcoming classics and the amount of fans on the roadside will show tha look at last years opening stages of the Vuelta. I prefer to use that as a barometer rather than disturbing a 1000 folk as they eat their dinner and asking them how they view the TDF. So a few races are lost mostly (apart from the Tour of Germany) due to economics rather that drug issues. As for new fans pro cycling will always be a minority sport in countries like the UK and the States etc that will not change doping or otherwise.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • PauloBets
    PauloBets Posts: 108
    BikingBernie wrote:
    PauloBets wrote:
    Pat Mcquaid is doing a good job, and both bio passport and toughened whereabouts system are very good. To read the comment of the silly whingers here makes me sick-no credit given to the UCI despite reform. Unfair.
    Yeah right! I understand that you also believe that Armstrong was / is clean. :roll:

    Lance like all the top guys surely has secrets, legal or not methods, have not said one or the other, am not sure really. Why don't you give some credit to the UCI instead of making idiotic remarks about the sport being destroyed
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.
    So when was the sport of professional cycling destroyed then ? Must have missed it myself but if you can point in me in the right direction as to when it exactly happened and why the sport is atill going on despite being em um em ............destroyed.
    You need to be replying to Iain, not me, and he wasn't arguing that doping had destroyed sport. Rather he was arguing that tackling doping would 'destroy' the sport ... :roll:
    iainf72 wrote:
    'I'm not a fan of Pat really, but he's between a rock and a hard place. If he tackles the doping problems head on and publically he will destroy the sport.

    No i responded to the right person as you said that if PC had tackled doping head on he would have saved the sport rather than destroyed it , so in your opinion when was it destroyed ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    iainf72 wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    If the sport is growing globally, why cherry pick the opinion of France?
    Odd, I thought I had mentioned Germany as well... :roll:
    You did but the article you quoted from only mentioned France.
    And to think that many people accuse me of posting too many quotations.

    I could add plenty of 'non-French' examples if you wish....
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    BikingBernie wrote:

    I could add plenty of 'non-French' examples if you wish....

    No thanks. But I do think it's interesting you picked a french example first.

    *shrug*
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Pontarlier Pete wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    Everyone here knows there's a doping problem, but we're all still watching.

    But how many more have turned off because of doping, and how many of us have less interest than we would otherwise?

    I have to agree with Bernie. What's the point in attracting new fans when as soon as they know anything about the sport they see it's riddled with doping? Most will then just switch off again.

    ....how many more have turned off because....
    I don't know and I doubt anyone knows. All I can say is that yourself and BB seem to hate doping but have yet to turn off cycling. So why would someone else do it? People watch football, baseball, wrestling, and who knows how many other sports that are "riddled with doping" and they're not turning it off. If you despise doping in cycling as much as you claim then why don't you "just switch off"? You seem to say that lots of people are quiting watching. How about some facts and figures instead of your opinion of what you THINK is happening??? It's possible that yourself and BB are wrong.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... index.html
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • pontarlier_pete
    pontarlier_pete Posts: 195
    dennisn wrote:

    ....how many more have turned off because....
    I don't know and I doubt anyone knows. All I can say is that yourself and BB seem to hate doping but have yet to turn off cycling. So why would someone else do it? People watch football, baseball, wrestling, and who knows how many other sports that are "riddled with doping" and they're not turning it off. If you despise doping in cycling as much as you claim then why don't you "just switch off"? You seem to say that lots of people are quiting watching. How about some facts and figures instead of your opinion of what you THINK is happening??? It's possible that yourself and BB are wrong.

    I did turn off, from 1999 until late '08 when I heard what Cav was doing. But thanks to that Texan I'm considering skipping the Tour this year again. If someone like myself, with a deep-rooted love of the sport from childhood, would switch off, how can the casual fan without that childhood bond be expected to retain an interest?

    Fair enough about the facts and figures, but then maybe those arguing that confronting doping head on would destroy the sport should also provide some facts and figures to support that argument. After all, it's only a THOUGHT that confronting it head on will destroy the sport - why don't you demand some evidence for that argument then?

    Let me ask another question then - would you want your child to become a professional cyclist in the current environment? I certainly wouldn't.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/07/07/tour/index.html

    Interesting article. I would have to disagree about the subtitle "Americans are outraged by doping....". It should be changed to read "Americans are told by the media, on a daily basis, that they are outraged at just about anything." Somewhere in the daily paper, that I read, there will be a headline telling me that "most Americans are outraged at......". On the nightly newscasts, both local and national / world we will be told that there is something
    that we are outraged about. Women are outraged, blacks are outraged, gays are outraged, Muslims are..., sports fans are.....,. The list goes on and on and, like I've said, it's something new everyday, and I mean that literally. Everyday I'm supposed to be outraged at something. We're so outraged over here that everyone has bleeding ulcers.
    Most overused word in the media. At least over here. Can you really imagine Americans being all that outraged about doping in cycling what with Pro football being so popular. Contrary to popular belief, everybody here knows these guys all use whatever. Pretty hard to get that big without help. As far as LA goes, well, over here he's pretty much
    THE MAN. The only bad thing I've ever heard someone say about him, to me, is "I'm getting pretty tired of seeing his picture everywhere".
    Trust me, we are not all outraged. Although we ARE told that we're supposed to be. I guess I'm just not listening.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    I feel that the majority of people that come on a forum like this are (not surprisingly) not particularly representative of the wider fan base. I've been to several TdF stages and you typically hear people saying "wow we'll see Lance" and "Does anyone know who's leading" I don't ever remember hearing a single reference to doping in general conversation. I think that the mildly obsessed amongst us, typically on forums like this get very focused on things the casual fan doesn't care about. I've been in bars talking to people and you say you're on the way to Alpe d'Huez for the stage on Wednesday or whatever, and people say you're crazy, the French themselves think the idea of standing up a mountain all day to watch a 10 second glance of the riders as they pass is madness. They don't immediately say "oh they're all doped" or "Lance is a Yankee Devil".

    Denis makes some good points about the nature of media coverage. In baseball for example the single season HR record is a nailed on result of doping, McGwire and Bonds are without doubt testimony to the effectiveness of BALCO product. Yet the casual fan didn't give a crap when the chase was on, it was hey Bonds hit number 65 today......whilst many BB writers were foaming at the mouth at the thought of Maris's record being broken by such an obvious doper.

    The German dump of cycling is related much more to economic pressures than any moral stance, that was a convenient excuse.

    I'd love to see doping ended, Lance admit the truth about things, and KNOW that when I watched a race it was won best the best cyclist not the best pharmacist. But I don't think that cycling will be destroyed by doping. Interestingly perhaps the one things that would come closest to destroying it is a nailed on positive for Lance.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    dougzz wrote:
    I
    ........ But I don't think that cycling will be destroyed by doping. Interestingly perhaps the one things that would come closest to destroying it is a nailed on positive for Lance.

    I never thought about it that way, but you might be right.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    As if to prove my earlier post(all of 15 minutes ago) I was scanning news on Yahoo
    and came across an article that said "people are outraged", at some university over something. Guess I'll have to work up a good rage now. Wonder what it was about???
    Doesn't matter, just so I'm outraged.
  • conceptual_primate
    conceptual_primate Posts: 81
    Moray Gub wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.
    So when was the sport of professional cycling destroyed then ? Must have missed it myself but if you can point in me in the right direction as to when it exactly happened and why the sport is atill going on despite being em um em ............destroyed.
    You need to be replying to Iain, not me, and he wasn't arguing that doping had destroyed sport. Rather he was arguing that tackling doping would 'destroy' the sport ... :roll:
    iainf72 wrote:
    'I'm not a fan of Pat really, but he's between a rock and a hard place. If he tackles the doping problems head on and publically he will destroy the sport.

    No i responded to the right person as you said that if PC had tackled doping head on he would have saved the sport rather than destroyed it , so in your opinion when was it destroyed ?

    I might be misinterpreting this, but as I read it Biking Bernie isn't saying the sport has become destroyed, but rather the reason Pat hasn't tackled the doping issue head on as he (Pat) feared doing so would destroy the sport?

    Also, a lot of the subsequent posts refer to the 'destruction' of the sport in terms of people's interest declining. Would the bigger factor not the mass exodus of team and event sponsors if everything came out in the wash?
  • conceptual_primate
    conceptual_primate Posts: 81
    Moray Gub wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.
    So when was the sport of professional cycling destroyed then ? Must have missed it myself but if you can point in me in the right direction as to when it exactly happened and why the sport is atill going on despite being em um em ............destroyed.
    You need to be replying to Iain, not me, and he wasn't arguing that doping had destroyed sport. Rather he was arguing that tackling doping would 'destroy' the sport ... :roll:
    iainf72 wrote:
    'I'm not a fan of Pat really, but he's between a rock and a hard place. If he tackles the doping problems head on and publically he will destroy the sport.

    No i responded to the right person as you said that if PC had tackled doping head on he would have saved the sport rather than destroyed it , so in your opinion when was it destroyed ?

    I might be misinterpreting this, but as I read it Biking Bernie isn't saying the sport has become destroyed, but rather the reason Pat hasn't tackled the doping issue head on as he (Pat) feared doing so would destroy the sport?

    Also, a lot of the subsequent posts refer to the 'destruction' of the sport in terms of people's interest declining. Would the bigger factor not the mass exodus of team and event sponsors if everything came out in the wash?
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    dennisn wrote:
    As if to prove my earlier post(all of 15 minutes ago) I was scanning news on Yahoo
    and came across an article that said "people are outraged", at some university over something. Guess I'll have to work up a good rage now. Wonder what it was about???
    Doesn't matter, just so I'm outraged.

    If it was anything to do with what's been going on at UCSD recently, then I believe a large number of people are genuinely outraged.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    DaveyL wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    As if to prove my earlier post(all of 15 minutes ago) I was scanning news on Yahoo
    and came across an article that said "people are outraged", at some university over something. Guess I'll have to work up a good rage now. Wonder what it was about???
    Doesn't matter, just so I'm outraged.

    If it was anything to do with what's been going on at UCSD recently, then I believe a large number of people are genuinely outraged.

    I don't doubt that they are outraged. All 200 of them. But then again how many are "genuinely outraged" and how many are sort of along for the ride, a little bored, just followers of the crowd, that sort of thing. So maybe you've got a few true believers in what they do and what they are protesting. Doesn't mean they are right or that they have millions of followers. So out of a crowd of 200, or so, figure 100 are just onlookers who are just curious and or bored. I'm betting that, at best, 6 or 8 people started this and that they too will be back in class tomorrow or maybe protesting, provided their class schedule permits it.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Pontarlier Pete wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    ....how many more have turned off because....
    I don't know and I doubt anyone knows. All I can say is that yourself and BB seem to hate doping but have yet to turn off cycling. So why would someone else do it? People watch football, baseball, wrestling, and who knows how many other sports that are "riddled with doping" and they're not turning it off. If you despise doping in cycling as much as you claim then why don't you "just switch off"? You seem to say that lots of people are quiting watching. How about some facts and figures instead of your opinion of what you THINK is happening??? It's possible that yourself and BB are wrong.

    I did turn off, from 1999 until late '08 when I heard what Cav was doing. But thanks to that Texan I'm considering skipping the Tour this year again. If someone like myself, with a deep-rooted love of the sport from childhood, would switch off, how can the casual fan without that childhood bond be expected to retain an interest?

    Fair enough about the facts and figures, but then maybe those arguing that confronting doping head on would destroy the sport should also provide some facts and figures to support that argument. After all, it's only a THOUGHT that confronting it head on will destroy the sport - why don't you demand some evidence for that argument then?

    Let me ask another question then - would you want your child to become a professional cyclist in the current environment? I certainly wouldn't.

    Is it possible to have a deep rooted love for the sport of pro cycling and switch off for 8 years ? mmmm for me nothing at all i can think off would make me turn my back on a sport i have followed since i was a kid.............nothing.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    dennisn wrote:
    DaveyL wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    As if to prove my earlier post(all of 15 minutes ago) I was scanning news on Yahoo
    and came across an article that said "people are outraged", at some university over something. Guess I'll have to work up a good rage now. Wonder what it was about???
    Doesn't matter, just so I'm outraged.

    If it was anything to do with what's been going on at UCSD recently, then I believe a large number of people are genuinely outraged.

    I don't doubt that they are outraged. All 200 of them. But then again how many are "genuinely outraged" and how many are sort of along for the ride, a little bored, just followers of the crowd, that sort of thing. So maybe you've got a few true believers in what they do and what they are protesting. Doesn't mean they are right or that they have millions of followers. So out of a crowd of 200, or so, figure 100 are just onlookers who are just curious and or bored. I'm betting that, at best, 6 or 8 people started this and that they too will be back in class tomorrow or maybe protesting, provided their class schedule permits it.

    The strange thing about that is its just black students protesting id have though white students would have wanted to protest as well.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Pontarlier Pete wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    ....how many more have turned off because....
    I don't know and I doubt anyone knows. All I can say is that yourself and BB seem to hate doping but have yet to turn off cycling. So why would someone else do it? People watch football, baseball, wrestling, and who knows how many other sports that are "riddled with doping" and they're not turning it off. If you despise doping in cycling as much as you claim then why don't you "just switch off"? You seem to say that lots of people are quiting watching. How about some facts and figures instead of your opinion of what you THINK is happening??? It's possible that yourself and BB are wrong.


    Let me ask another question then - would you want your child to become a professional cyclist in the current environment? I certainly wouldn't.

    What would you have your child do then if he wanted to ride? Deny him that??? And by the time he becomes a pro you won't have any say in it. Sure you can steer him away from cycling, but why would you do that?? Just because you are turned off by the Pros's
    and all the things you think they do doesn't mean your son can't pursue a career in cycling
    and be someone you would be proud of.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    MG there have been plenty of white students protesting as well.

    Dennis, you seem to be doing a fine job of reading the motives of hundreds of people without knowing anything about them. Good job.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    dennisn wrote:
    DaveyL wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    As if to prove my earlier post(all of 15 minutes ago) I was scanning news on Yahoo
    and came across an article that said "people are outraged", at some university over something. Guess I'll have to work up a good rage now. Wonder what it was about???
    Doesn't matter, just so I'm outraged.

    If it was anything to do with what's been going on at UCSD recently, then I believe a large number of people are genuinely outraged.

    I don't doubt that they are outraged. All 200 of them. But then again how many are "genuinely outraged" and how many are sort of along for the ride, a little bored, just followers of the crowd, that sort of thing. So maybe you've got a few true believers in what they do and what they are protesting. Doesn't mean they are right or that they have millions of followers. So out of a crowd of 200, or so, figure 100 are just onlookers who are just curious and or bored. I'm betting that, at best, 6 or 8 people started this and that they too will be back in class tomorrow or maybe protesting, provided their class schedule permits it.

    Oh, and I doubt very much whether all of the protagonists in this affair will be "back in class" any time soon. Many of them will be out on their asses, and some might even get as far as the slammer.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    DaveyL wrote:

    Dennis, you seem to be doing a fine job of reading the motives of hundreds of people without knowing anything about them. Good job.

    Not really. I believe my post had more than it's share of "maybes" and an "I bet" or two.
    I don't know what those people are thinking. After all, it's California and someone is outraged over something out there every second of every day. Soon it will fall into the Pacific after the next big one and then most people in this country will say "Good riddance, we're sick of hearing you b*tch about everything, everyday". There is a saying of sorts over here that Califonia is the land of fruits and nuts. They seem to do their best to live up to that motto. :wink::wink:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    DaveyL wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    DaveyL wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    As if to prove my earlier post(all of 15 minutes ago) I was scanning news on Yahoo
    and came across an article that said "people are outraged", at some university over something. Guess I'll have to work up a good rage now. Wonder what it was about???
    Doesn't matter, just so I'm outraged.

    If it was anything to do with what's been going on at UCSD recently, then I believe a large number of people are genuinely outraged.

    I don't doubt that they are outraged. All 200 of them. But then again how many are "genuinely outraged" and how many are sort of along for the ride, a little bored, just followers of the crowd, that sort of thing. So maybe you've got a few true believers in what they do and what they are protesting. Doesn't mean they are right or that they have millions of followers. So out of a crowd of 200, or so, figure 100 are just onlookers who are just curious and or bored. I'm betting that, at best, 6 or 8 people started this and that they too will be back in class tomorrow or maybe protesting, provided their class schedule permits it.

    Oh, and I doubt very much whether all of the protagonists in this affair will be "back in class" any time soon. Many of them will be out on their asses, and some might even get as far as the slammer.

    Maybe, but h*ll, that's just a normal day on a U.S. campus. Especially in California.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Dennis, there are four year old children with a better grasp on reality than you. Seriously.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    DaveyL wrote:
    Dennis, there are four year old children with a better grasp on reality than you. Seriously.

    That could very well be, but I'm only partially kidding when I talk about California. It is always the subject of jokes and people talk about it like it's a leper colony, of sorts.
    Even the movie business, which is located in LA, portrays the town as full of gangs, criminals, drugs, etc. and in fact it's true. College protest was practically invented in California. So it gets it's share of slams. To be honest, just another protest, soon to be forgotten. This sort of thing doesn't really raise too many eyebrows these days. I'm sure
    that whomever was responsible for the noose, swastika, and the KKK hood will be caught and put on proper display and more people will be outraged and then the whole thing will slip quietly beneath the waves. Only to be relived when some other Bozo decides to pull a similar stunt. Whoa, starting to ramble.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    DaveyL wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    DaveyL wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    As if to prove my earlier post(all of 15 minutes ago) I was scanning news on Yahoo
    and came across an article that said "people are outraged", at some university over something. Guess I'll have to work up a good rage now. Wonder what it was about???
    Doesn't matter, just so I'm outraged.



    Oh, and I doubt very much whether all of the protagonists in this affair will be "back in class" any time soon. Many of them will be out on their asses, and some might even get as far as the slammer.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/0 ... 81105.html

    Seems some of what Dennis says about outrage rings true
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Yes, perish the thought that anyone could get genuinely angry that a bunch of white kids decided to lampoon certain racial stereotypes during a month where aspects of black culture were being promoted on campus, use the campus TV station to defend, and in fact inflame, the situation, and then have someone else "accidentally" leave a noose hanging in the library.

    God, some folk are just so bloody touchy, eh?
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    DaveyL wrote:
    Yes, perish the thought that anyone could get genuinely angry that a bunch of white kids decided to lampoon certain racial stereotypes during a month where aspects of black culture were being promoted on campus, use the campus TV station to defend, and in fact inflame, the situation, and then have someone else "accidentally" leave a noose hanging in the library.

    God, some folk are just so bloody touchy, eh?

    Oh ffs you'd think we has a Rodney King or Kris Donald situation here, lets put it into some kind of perspective.........as you said yourself its a bunch of white kids stepping over the mark no need to turn into some kind of state wide protest.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Moray Gub wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:

    To be honest, I think that tackling doping head on, as Patrice Clerc seemed intent on doing, might well have saved the sport in the long term, not destroyed it.

    So when was the sport of professional cycling destroyed then ? Must have missed it myself but if you can point in me in the right direction as to when it exactly happened and why the sport is atill going on despite being em um em ............destroyed.

    BB is using the 3rd conditional, referring to a situation which never happened. IF the UCI had tackled doping, it WOULDN'T have destroyed cycling.

    He is also talking about the long-term, however he may define that.

    (Pedant mode off)

Categories