Wiggo's form
Comments
-
BikingBernie wrote:
Is it possible to be a cynical realist? Whatever, what I understood to mean 'education' twenty odd years ago is certainly not what is sold under the same name today. Its goals have changed and any 'old fashioned' notions of encouraging free thinking and developing the ideals established in the Enlightenment have been junked in the name of 'training' people to serve the narrow needs of business. I still believe that true education is what I understood it to be 20 years ago, so my use of 'scare quotes' around the term in relation to its current usage is, to my mind, entirely valid.No tA Doctor wrote:
Cynics always say they're realists. Your apostrophes around education give the game away though.BikingBernie wrote:
I wasn't been cynical, just giving a fair and accurate description of just one situation I have experienced that highlighted the failings of management to actually manage effectively. From other things I have read it is also a pretty common situation in modern higher 'education'.No tA Doctor wrote:I find cynicism to be such an ugly character trait.
Off topic section:
No, it's not possible to be a cynical realist. "Realism" is an affectation of the cynic.
As for education...
Well a Marxist might say that the enlightenment ideals still present in education 20 years ago were merely a reflection of education being a privilege of the bourgeoisie.
A post-structuralist would probably agree, then point to how education has always served power, and show how the power has shifted in the last 20 years.
But if you're going to point out that education has become an institutionalised sausage factory, churning out fodder for the business factories, then please abstract the institution of education from the people that carry out its functions - whether they be educators or managers (insert analogy of institutionalised racism here, i.e. racism being present in institutions without any member of the institution actually being racist) . You've certainly got an argument to make, but pinning the blame on managers avoids the real questions of how and why the power that shapes the institution manifests itself.
Of course a cycling fan would ask wtf has this got to do with cycling? Apologies to all for going so far off topic.
Back to being somewhat on-topic:
Bernie - your cynicism is manifest. I used your description of managers to highlight it. But It's most evident, here on this forum, in your discussions regarding cycling and doping. I think it's unwarranted, and unhelpful. I'm not a hero worshipper, I have 100% faith in the cleanliness of no rider. But there has undoubtedly been progress made since the days I refused to watch cycling (over a decade between Festina and Floyd's letter to Lance) and that should be encouraged. To do that there has to be room for hope and optimism. There has to be room for cautious benefit of doubt. I'm not advocating blind faith, excuse-mongering, Panglossian optimism or head-in-the-sand ignorance, just a degree of perspective.
As far as I've read, you don't actually believe Wiggins or Sky are doping. So all I can see is an attempt to strip our nationalistic naivety away so we can all be revealed as patriotically blinded hypocrites. Hardly any wonder that people have reacted strongly against that, is there? And if both you and I agree that Wiggins and Sky probably aren't doping, how come it's only you that arrived at that conclusion through reason and rationality, while everyone else has managed to arrive at the right conclusion through nationalistic fervour and wilful ignorance? How can we end up in a situation where all sides seem to arguing that Wiggins is probably clean and yet they seem to be arguing against each other?
I'm going to bow out now, as I've probably bored the arse off everyone.
Bernie: if you want a serious discussion of what I've written above then I'll happily conduct it with you by PM.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
-
ratsbeyfus wrote:
Ah, Orson Welles. A man who came from the outside, questioned the established received wisdom and made the ground-breaking Citizen Kane, from which you gif comes. With it he changed how the world saw cinema.
Maybe Tim Kerrison is the Orson Welles of cycling.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Ah, Orson Welles. A man who came from the outside, questioned the established received wisdom and made the ground-breaking Citizen Kane, from which you gif comes. With it he changed how the world saw cinema.
Maybe Tim Kerrison is the Orson Welles of cycling.
A prominent clean directorOrson Welles wrote:"One of the many reasons I don't get invited out much is because they all know I won't take any cocaine."Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Yep... good old Orson Wells. Course, I only really remember him as the fat bloke from the beer commercials (Carling?). That, and I used to get him mixed up with Peter Ustinov, so thought for many a year that he was the voice behind 'Dr Snuggles'... anyhow, I digress.
Back to my original question (from page 1)... what are the chances that Twiggy is gonna be inclined/able to bust a gut for Cav in the olympic road race seeing as it comes before the TT? Unless he takes on early break chasing down duties and and then soft peddles his way back to London. Any thoughts? Just can't see him being able to do the job he did for Cav in the world champs and have a chance in the TT.0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:Yep... good old Orson Wells. Course, I only really remember him as the fat bloke from the beer commercials (Carling?). That, and I used to get him mixed up with Peter Ustinov, so thought for many a year that he was the voice behind 'Dr Snuggles'... anyhow, I digress.
Back to my original question (from page 1)... what are the chances that Twiggy is gonna be inclined/able to bust a gut for Cav in the olympic road race seeing as it comes before the TT? Unless he takes on early break chasing down duties and and then soft peddles his way back to London. Any thoughts? Just can't see him being able to do the job he did for Cav in the world champs and have a chance in the TT.
Was that the original question? Blimey....
Wiggins says he's thinking of TdF + OL as being basically a four week race. He's straight into the training camp on the Sunday, direct from (hopefully) standing on the podium dressed in yellow. There'll be no let-up in training, no rest period.
Is this possible?
No idea, frankly. Sounds bloody hard. You can't race the TdF and try to win it keeping something back for a week later.
Personally, I think that if he has the form for a podium on the TdF and does just enough to maintain form without exhausting himself (he's talking 2-3 hour training rides) then he can probably keep enough form to be a useful contributor to Cav's road race team. Whether he can keep enough form for a realistic shout at a medal in the OL TT is another matter - but gving it a good go on the front in the road race probably doesn't have all that much effect on his TT form. Though I'll admit I don't don't know the time gap between road and TT... If its the day after then no. Two days, maybe. Thre days and the road race is just training.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
There has been some public chat about this - the plan was (and presumably still is) for Wiggins to do early work in the road race in London, and probably not even finish. So no chance of a closing turn like he did in Copenhagen, but no expectations anyway. It was a while ago, so sorry no links.ratsbeyfus wrote:Yep... good old Orson Wells. Course, I only really remember him as the fat bloke from the beer commercials (Carling?). That, and I used to get him mixed up with Peter Ustinov, so thought for many a year that he was the voice behind 'Dr Snuggles'... anyhow, I digress.
Back to my original question (from page 1)... what are the chances that Twiggy is gonna be inclined/able to bust a gut for Cav in the olympic road race seeing as it comes before the TT? Unless he takes on early break chasing down duties and and then soft peddles his way back to London. Any thoughts? Just can't see him being able to do the job he did for Cav in the world champs and have a chance in the TT.0 -
I'm going to keep calling you on this until you actually provide the numerous links (or at least one!) you claimed were available. Where are they?BikingBernie wrote:Anyhow, why employ a dodgy doctor
There's a Mark Shields quote along the lines of: the trouble with smear campaigns is that often they work0 -
First of all I would like to say that I do appreciate the thought and intelligence that went into your reply. However, I would argue that realism is, at least some of the time, merely realism, and that dismissing realism as nothing more than 'cynicism' can all too easily play into the hands of those who would benefit if the often unpleasant realities of human society were to remain unchallenged.No tA Doctor wrote:...it's not possible to be a cynical realist. "Realism" is an affectation of the cynic.
Your comments regarding Marxist and post-structuralist analyses of education are well put. However, I never argued that managers are ultimately to 'blame' for education becoming 'an institutionalised sausage factory, churning out fodder for the business factories'. (The 'cynic' in me would probably lay the ultimate 'blame' on the ever-more pervasive influence of amoral, neo-liberal capitalism, where the ultimate purpose of every social activity is considered to be the generate profits for shareholders, with everything else the institution does being subservient to this). That said, I feel you let 'managers' off far too lightly, as it is exactly through such individuals that 'the power that shapes the institution manifests itself', and the higher up the hierarchy they stand, the greater their power over others. (I would say that a similar situation exists in relation to your example of institutionalised racism, as I very much doubt that it is possible for an institution to be racist 'without any member of the institution actually being racist'. Rather, institutionalised racism arises from the collective racism of those that make up the institution and its power structures).
As to doping, particularly in relation to Wiggins and Sky. It is not so much that both myself and those who seem upset by my questioning all actually 'believe the same thing'. That is, to use your simplistic formulation, that Wiggins and Sky are clean. Rather, I have tried to argue that, whilst it is true that there is no solid evidence that they are doping, nonetheless it is surely naive, especially given past experiences of pro cycling, to categorically claim that they are clean. Conversely, many others appear to want to argue that an absence of proof should indeed be taken as being proof of absence (a logical fallacy) and that none of the things I have pointed out even merit a 'raised eyebrow', when I think ignoring them risks taking a biased perspective. A subtle difference maybe but clearly one that people are prepared to argue about.
As to why some people are so defensive of Sky, Wiggins et al, I do not think that are 'patriotically blinded hypocrites' as you would have it. However, there are innumerable comments on this forum that show many do support Sky, Cavendish and Wiggins largely because they are the 'home team'. I have always found such sectarianism distasteful, whatever the nationality of those exhibiting it, and admit that this can lead me to be wilfully 'provocative' at times, which I accept is hardly constructive.
Cheers!0 -
BikingBernie wrote:As to why some people are so defensive of Sky, Wiggins et al, I do not think that are 'patriotically blinded hypocrites' as you would have it. However, there are innumerable comments on this forum that show many do support Sky, Cavendish and Wiggins largely because they are the 'home team'. I have always found such sectarianism distasteful, whatever the nationality of those exhibiting it, and admit that this can lead me to be wilfully 'provocative' at times, which I accept is hardly constructive.
Yet, when I criticise your beloved French riders, saying the same things that the likes of Hinault have said before, you brand me xenophobic, emphasising it with racial slurs.
I'm still waiting to see if you have it in you to apologise for that particular outburst.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Personally, I will be open to 'raising an eyebrow' when you provide the links you claimed existed. Failing that I will be forced to believe that it is you and not the majority of posters on here who are operating from a biased perspective.BikingBernie wrote:and that none of the things I have pointed out even merit a 'raised eyebrow', when I think ignoring them risks taking a biased perspective!0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
As to doping, particularly in relation to Wiggins and Sky. It is not so much that both myself and those who seem upset by my questioning all actually 'believe the same thing'. That is, to use your simplistic formulation, that Wiggins and Sky are clean. Rather, I have tried to argue that, whilst it is true that there is no solid evidence that they are doping, nonetheless it is surely naive, especially given past experiences of pro cycling, to categorically claim that they are clean. Conversely, many others appear to want to argue that an absence of proof should indeed be taken as being proof of absence (a logical fallacy) and that none of the things I have pointed out even merit a 'raised eyebrow', when I think ignoring them risks taking a biased perspective. A subtle difference maybe but clearly one that people are prepared to argue about.
As to why some people are so defensive of Sky, Wiggins et al, I do not think that are 'patriotically blinded hypocrites' as you would have it. However, there are innumerable comments on this forum that show many do support Sky, Cavendish and Wiggins largely because they are the 'home team'. I have always found such sectarianism distasteful, whatever the nationality of those exhibiting it, and admit that this can lead me to be wilfully 'provocative' at times, which I accept is hardly constructive.
Cheers!
I'm going to stick to the cycling/doping stuff now, as the other stuff is just too far off topic, no matter how interesting. We're certainly not diametrically opposed on it.
Basically, I don't think that there is anyone out there stating that Sky are categorically clean, or that absence of a doping positive is proof of a negative. Maybe I'm wrong and there are people that naive, but I haven't noticed them. If that's who you're arguing with then I'm happy to join you, though I don't see much "sport" in it.
The points you've made seem to me to be fairly easily dealt with by Occam's razor. We can either build some sort of conspiracy up, or we can accept that e.g. Wiggins is an unreliable interviewee when it comes to trainings methods and performance. If there was more to it than that then the explanatory simplification offered by "he's doping" might start to come into play. As it is its unfortunately far too believable that professional sportsmen talk bollocks. I'm actually struggling to find a recent example of a professional sportsman that didn't either talk bollocks or say nothing meaningful whatsoever.
As for nationalism - I left GB nearly 20 years ago and never want to go back. I've pretty much passed the Tebbit "cricket test" regarding most sports - I certainly cheer for my adoptive nation over the England team in football. But when it comes to cycling I have a slightly different agenda. We aren't the colonialist bully-boys we might be thought of in other sports, we're the underdogs. Belgium, France, Spain, Italy - they're the big boys.
I live in a country where cycling is a way of life. It's part and parcel of everyday living here in Copenhagen.
I grew up in London, where cycling was a question of putting yourself on the road and asserting your right to be there.
I know that pro-race isn't cycle-commuting, but bloody hell, British cyclists need some heroes, they need some status, they need Wiggins in a yellow jersey and an Olympic Gold Medal that all the non-cyclists can smile about, because as soon as they're finished bloody Clarkson will be on about cyclists paying road tax, or how wearing lycra should mean that it's legal to be mown down or something. I like British cyclists because they're there despite what the country has thrown at them. I like cyclists that have cycled on the roads I've ridden on and have still managed to make it to the TdF.
It isn't nationalism or some petty geographical tribalism - it's about cycling and cyclists, professional, amateur and commuter.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
First of all I would like to say that I do appreciate the thought and intelligence that went into your reply. However, I would argue that realism is, at least some of the time, merely realism, and that dismissing realism as nothing more than 'cynicism' can all too easily play into the hands of those who would benefit if the often unpleasant realities of human society were to remain unchallenged.No tA Doctor wrote:...it's not possible to be a cynical realist. "Realism" is an affectation of the cynic.
Your comments regarding Marxist and post-structuralist analyses of education are well put. However, I never argued that managers are ultimately to 'blame' for education becoming 'an institutionalised sausage factory, churning out fodder for the business factories'. (The 'cynic' in me would probably lay the ultimate 'blame' on the ever-more pervasive influence of amoral, neo-liberal capitalism, where the ultimate purpose of every social activity is considered to be the generate profits for shareholders, with everything else the institution does being subservient to this). That said, I feel you let 'managers' off far too lightly, as it is exactly through such individuals that 'the power that shapes the institution manifests itself', and the higher up the hierarchy they stand, the greater their power over others. (I would say that a similar situation exists in relation to your example of institutionalised racism, as I very much doubt that it is possible for an institution to be racist 'without any member of the institution actually being racist'. Rather, institutionalised racism arises from the collective racism of those that make up the institution and its power structures).
As to doping, particularly in relation to Wiggins and Sky. It is not so much that both myself and those who seem upset by my questioning all actually 'believe the same thing'. That is, to use your simplistic formulation, that Wiggins and Sky are clean. Rather, I have tried to argue that, whilst it is true that there is no solid evidence that they are doping, nonetheless it is surely naive, especially given past experiences of pro cycling, to categorically claim that they are clean. Conversely, many others appear to want to argue that an absence of proof should indeed be taken as being proof of absence (a logical fallacy) and that none of the things I have pointed out even merit a 'raised eyebrow', when I think ignoring them risks taking a biased perspective. A subtle difference maybe but clearly one that people are prepared to argue about.
As to why some people are so defensive of Sky, Wiggins et al, I do not think that are 'patriotically blinded hypocrites' as you would have it. However, there are innumerable comments on this forum that show many do support Sky, Cavendish and Wiggins largely because they are the 'home team'. I have always found such sectarianism distasteful, whatever the nationality of those exhibiting it, and admit that this can lead me to be wilfully 'provocative' at times, which I accept is hardly constructive.
Cheers!
Its entirely possible for an organization to be racist without any members being racist. If we take the organization's culture as a phenomenological idea; a body defined by individual 'cells' (think of this as a biological metaphor) we can see how the organization is not only defined by the individual cells, but also the structure and construction of the 'cells' within the body, and components of the body.
Thus allowing the body to have a property, or be something, that the individual cells are not.
I also disagree with your view on doping. There isn't any naivety... I think you've confused naivety for optimism..
I think cycling fans are optimistic that the peloton we are seeing today is a cleaner one. If Wiggins is a doper then the chances are at some point that something will be found out... but until that point I fail to see how it's reasonable to argue that because in the past the peloton has doped, that means that every time we see a good performance and get excited we should cut ourselves down with the reminder that they *might* be doping. I would much rather enjoy the sport for what it is and then ask the questions in the future when there is actual evidence.
Where would you draw the line and start taking the optimistic line, believing in a clean peloton?
Would you take this to the extreme of your logic? 50 years ago there were dopers? so there is still a good chance there are now?0 -
support Sky, Cavendish and Wiggins largely because they are the 'home team'. I have always found such sectarianism distasteful
Seriously? I live in france but I enjoy going back to the uk. Probably makes me a bloody racist. :shock:0 -
This is a silly argument. Organisations are composed of conscious, acting individuals, not biological cells, and it is the actions of those individuals that creates the culture. To take a simple example, the use of the police to preferentially select people from ethnic minorities for 'stop and search' might well be a reflection of the forces 'phenomenological' policies, which do not reside in any single individual, but for those policies to come about some individual, or group of individuals, had to write them, and they way they are framed will inevitably reflect those individuals own prejudices and biases. Plus the way that are actually implemented will to tend to reflect the biases and prejudices of those officers 'on the beat'.ALIHISGREAT wrote:Its entirely possible for an organization to be racist without any members being racist. If we take the organization's culture as a phenomenological idea; a body defined by individual 'cells' (think of this as a biological metaphor) we can see how the organization is not only defined by the individual cells, but also the structure and construction of the 'cells' within the body, and components of the body. Thus allowing the body to have a property, or be something, that the individual cells are not.?
Why look back 50 years when one only has to look back a few months to find examples of doping within pro cycling? I see no reason to believe that cycling's culture of doping, which has existed since the inception of the sport, has somehow disappeared in the last few months.ALIHISGREAT wrote:Where would you draw the line and start taking the optimistic line, believing in a clean peloton? Would you take this to the extreme of your logic? 50 years ago there were dopers? so there is still a good chance there are now?0 -
Fair enough. But it also follows that nothing that Wiggins has said about Sky's training methods and performance (or his weight, or the degree to which losing weight benefits climbing performance etc.) can be used to justify a belief that he and Sky really are racing clean, which to a large degree is the point I was trying to make in the first place!No tA Doctor wrote:We can either build some sort of conspiracy up, or we can accept that e.g. Wiggins is an unreliable interviewee when it comes to trainings methods and performance. If there was more to it than that then the explanatory simplification offered by "he's doping" might start to come into play. As it is its unfortunately far too believable that professional sportsmen talk bollocks. I'm actually struggling to find a recent example of a professional sportsman that didn't either talk bollocks or say nothing meaningful whatsoever.0 -
One last time, then I'm giving up - Wiggins is not a smart guy - few professionals are - so he probably has no idea what he's talking about. If you read his book, it's clear that if he does nt have someone (Brailsford/Boardman) telling him exactly when and what to do then he's lost and just dissapears down the pub. Yes he's like a big child, but so are many other pro-athletes. Not surprising really as a lot of them have never had to live in "the real world."
Brailsford/Boardman are nt speaking about it becasue A) they can see a paper or two after this when it's time to give up cycling and
They don't want every other Tom, Pip and Andy (see what I did there) using those methods to beat them.
Now that does nt prove/disprove anything to doping, but using it to cast suspicion is casting a very long line indeed...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Unfortunately, as Alasdair MacIntyre has argued, many managers find it just as easy to dismiss the idea that their own personal morality has any role to play when they are playing the role of being a 'manager'.No tA Doctor wrote:
I call Godwin's law. You lose.BikingBernie wrote:
Yes, every regime needs its loyal 'kapos'...No tA Doctor wrote:I've met plenty of crap managers in my time, some have even been autocratic, self-serving and incompetent. And yes, some are also suck-ups and management-speak freaks. By and large though, most are merely trying to deliver whatever goals have been specified to them by their management, on time and on budget...
(Especially those who are willing to 'eliminate undesirables and malcontents' for the 'greater good' of the hierarchy and its goals.)
For the effective and 'professional' manager the mantra 'This is nothing personal, just business' will be enough to salve their consciences even as they dismiss and perhaps destroy the life of an employee who was failed to 'toe the party line' or they have taken a personal dislike to. Or they may 'diligently try to deliver the goals that have been set', even when this means acting in an illegal way or causing harm to others or the environment. Or, to take an extreme case, they may reason that they are 'only following orders' even as they draw up timetables to deport people to concentration camps. Again this is also a parallel that MacIntyre has drawn, and I sure that you are at least aware of of Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil which points out that even Eichmann was not a 'monster' just a good bureaucrat who was 'merely trying to deliver the goals that had been specified to him' by his more senior management, 'on time and on budget'.
I would argue that no one can claim to be a truly moral person if they are willing to overlook their own personal moral values in order to be able to play a role with maximum effectiveness (as defined by the organisation they work for) even if they get managerial level pay for doing so.
For two great morality tales with relevance to this point see chapter thirteen 'But then it was too late' in Milton Meyer's book They thought they were free, which is widely available on the internet, and chaper two 'They Grey Zone' in Primo Levi's The drowned and the saved.0 -
-
So, in the absence of any credible supporting evidence from Wiggins and others, can we at least agree that a belief that he and Sky are clean amounts to nothing more than a declaration of unsubstantiated faith?ddraver wrote:One last time, then I'm giving up - Wiggins is not a smart guy - few professionals are - so he probably has no idea what he's talking about...Now that does nt prove/disprove anything to doping, but using it to cast suspicion is casting a very long line indeed...0 -
Here come autocracy again...Rick Chasey wrote:Tempted to lock this.
Can't you wait until I have posted up translations of those Dutch articles about Geert Leinders?0 -
So, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, can we at least agree that a belief that he and Sky are dopers amounts to nothing more than a declaration of unsubstantiated faith?BikingBernie wrote:
So, in the absence of any credible supporting evidence from Wiggins and others, can we at least agree that a belief that he and Sky are clean amounts to nothing more than a declaration of unsubstantiated faith?ddraver wrote:One last time, then I'm giving up - Wiggins is not a smart guy - few professionals are - so he probably has no idea what he's talking about...Now that does nt prove/disprove anything to doping, but using it to cast suspicion is casting a very long line indeed...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Unfortunately, as Alasdair MacIntyre has argued, many managers find it just as easy to dismiss the idea that their own personal morality has any role to play when they are playing the role of being a 'manager'.
For the effective and 'professional' manager the mantra 'This is nothing personal, just business' will be enough to salve their consciences even as they dismiss and perhaps destroy the life of an employee who was failed to 'toe the party line' or they have taken a personal dislike to. Or they may 'diligently try to deliver the goals that have been set', even when this means acting in an illegal way or causing harm to others or the environment. Or, to take an extreme case, they may reason that they are 'only following orders' even as they draw up timetables to deport people to concentration camps. Again this is also a parallel that MacIntyre has drawn, and I sure that you are at least aware of of Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil which points out that even Eichmann was not a 'monster' just a good bureaucrat who was 'merely trying to deliver the goals that had been specified to him' by his more senior management, 'on time and on budget'.
I would argue that no one can claim to be a truly moral person if they are willing to overlook their own personal moral values in order to be able to play a role with maximum effectiveness (as defined by the organisation they work for) even if they get managerial level pay for doing so.BikingBernie wrote:
So, in the absence of any credible supporting evidence from Wiggins and others, can we at least agree that a belief that he and Sky are clean amounts to nothing more than a declaration of unsubstantiated faith?ddraver wrote:One last time, then I'm giving up - Wiggins is not a smart guy - few professionals are - so he probably has no idea what he's talking about...Now that does nt prove/disprove anything to doping, but using it to cast suspicion is casting a very long line indeed...
For two great morality tales with relevance to this point see chapter thirteen 'But then it was too late' in Milton Meyer's book They thought they were free, which is widely available on the internet, and chaper two 'They Grey Zone' in Primo Levi's The drowned and the saved.
This is a contractual issue, the manager has been contracted to behave in a certain way and is receiving compensation; to act any other way would be compromising the morals of an honest individual -> as they take the ownership's compensation but don't carry out their role as set out and agreed in their contract.
Its not as clear cut as you put it; managers don't simply leave their morals at the door when they enter the workplace.BikingBernie wrote:
So, in the absence of any credible supporting evidence from Wiggins and others, can we at least agree that a belief that he and Sky are clean amounts to nothing more than a declaration of unsubstantiated faith?ddraver wrote:One last time, then I'm giving up - Wiggins is not a smart guy - few professionals are - so he probably has no idea what he's talking about...Now that does nt prove/disprove anything to doping, but using it to cast suspicion is casting a very long line indeed...
Can we talk about presumption of innocence? You've given no evidence of doping, therefore the belief isn't really unsubstantiated... its based upon 2000 years of cultural and legal precedent.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
As to doping, particularly in relation to Wiggins and Sky. It is not so much that both myself and those who seem upset by my questioning all actually 'believe the same thing'. That is, to use your simplistic formulation, that Wiggins and Sky are clean. Rather, I have tried to argue that, whilst it is true that there is no solid evidence that they are doping, nonetheless it is surely naive, especially given past experiences of pro cycling, to categorically claim that they are clean. Conversely, many others appear to want to argue that an absence of proof should indeed be taken as being proof of absence (a logical fallacy) and that none of the things I have pointed out even merit a 'raised eyebrow', when I think ignoring them risks taking a biased perspective. A subtle difference maybe but clearly one that people are prepared to argue about.
As to why some people are so defensive of Sky, Wiggins et al, I do not think that are 'patriotically blinded hypocrites' as you would have it. However, there are innumerable comments on this forum that show many do support Sky, Cavendish and Wiggins largely because they are the 'home team'. I have always found such sectarianism distasteful, whatever the nationality of those exhibiting it, and admit that this can lead me to be wilfully 'provocative' at times, which I accept is hardly constructive.
Cheers!
I'm going to stick to the cycling/doping stuff now, as the other stuff is just too far off topic, no matter how interesting. We're certainly not diametrically opposed on it.
Basically, I don't think that there is anyone out there stating that Sky are categorically clean, or that absence of a doping positive is proof of a negative. Maybe I'm wrong and there are people that naive, but I haven't noticed them. If that's who you're arguing with then I'm happy to join you, though I don't see much "sport" in it.
The points you've made seem to me to be fairly easily dealt with by Occam's razor. We can either build some sort of conspiracy up, or we can accept that e.g. Wiggins is an unreliable interviewee when it comes to trainings methods and performance. If there was more to it than that then the explanatory simplification offered by "he's doping" might start to come into play. As it is its unfortunately far too believable that professional sportsmen talk bollocks. I'm actually struggling to find a recent example of a professional sportsman that didn't either talk bollocks or say nothing meaningful whatsoever.
As for nationalism - I left GB nearly 20 years ago and never want to go back. I've pretty much passed the Tebbit "cricket test" regarding most sports - I certainly cheer for my adoptive nation over the England team in football. But when it comes to cycling I have a slightly different agenda. We aren't the colonialist bully-boys we might be thought of in other sports, we're the underdogs. Belgium, France, Spain, Italy - they're the big boys.
I live in a country where cycling is a way of life. It's part and parcel of everyday living here in Copenhagen.
I grew up in London, where cycling was a question of putting yourself on the road and asserting your right to be there.
I know that pro-race isn't cycle-commuting, but bloody hell, British cyclists need some heroes, they need some status, they need Wiggins in a yellow jersey and an Olympic Gold Medal that all the non-cyclists can smile about, because as soon as they're finished bloody Clarkson will be on about cyclists paying road tax, or how wearing lycra should mean that it's legal to be mown down or something. I like British cyclists because they're there despite what the country has thrown at them. I like cyclists that have cycled on the roads I've ridden on and have still managed to make it to the TdF.
It isn't nationalism or some petty geographical tribalism - it's about cycling and cyclists, professional, amateur and commuter.
Can't believe this post has seemingly been ignored. Spot on :clap:
I'm not particularly patriotic - I'm a big football fan, but don't support the national team - but with cycling it's different. We're weirdos according to most of the general public, so to have a British team with British riders dishing out hurt to the cycling big boys is great, because you know they've probably had to put up with more hassle etc. than their Euro rivals.
I live in England, my old man lives in France (and is a Welshman) - where do I sit on the racism chart?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
So, in the absence of any credible supporting evidence from Wiggins and others, can we at least agree that a belief that he and Sky are clean amounts to nothing more than a declaration of unsubstantiated faith?ddraver wrote:One last time, then I'm giving up - Wiggins is not a smart guy - few professionals are - so he probably has no idea what he's talking about...Now that does nt prove/disprove anything to doping, but using it to cast suspicion is casting a very long line indeed...
Depends if your cynical or not eh? (certainly nothing to do with Critical thinking!)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Of course!bompington wrote:So, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, can we at least agree that a belief that he and Sky are dopers amounts to nothing more than a declaration of unsubstantiated faith?
Anyhow, going out training for a couple of hours. Back later.
Isn't this fun?
0 -
It doesn't have to do with being cynical or not whatever No tA Doctor says. It is about performances and joining the dots together. Argumentum ad populum don't work either (e.g - you are only a few thinking like that, there are a lot more of us thinking like this).
Regarding Gilbert and other riders. Well I do think Gilbert doped, hence his out-of-this world performances last year. Same for Wiggins and his UK Postal team, I think they are doping, got any evidence no. I am just looking at their performances.
I don't care if they are Spanish, French, German, British, whatever... I do still think this sport is as bad as it was, or worse even, as now people even think the sport is cleaner for the lack of positives.
You only have to look at Cobo's and Froome's performances last year at the Vuelta to know that is probably somewhat far from the truth.
I don't know where to sit with Peter Sagan, he is winning a lot, but he is only 22 and his performances are somewhat believable. Same for Cavendish - his progression seems to be believable. Can I guarantee they are clean? No, I can't. But at least it isn't as evident if they are.x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
"Same for Wiggins and his UK Postal team, I think they are doping, got any evidence no. I am just looking at their performances."
OK, I'll ask you the same question as I asked BB - has Wiggins actually put in any world-beating performances? Apart from in the TTs, where he has always been decent, I would say no.0 -
-
Why does it need locked? OK, there's a lot of tendentious crap on this thread, but on that basis you'd have to lock half the internet.Rick Chasey wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Tempted to lock this.
Any objections?0
This discussion has been closed.
