Is Truth & Reconciliation not just pointless but harmful?

2»

Comments

  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 13,411
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I think a new sincerity or informed ignorance is the only way forward.

    Call it post-postmodern sport appreciation.

    I'm forming the movement for post-kitsch neo-ironic cycling now.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • rob churchill
    rob churchill Posts: 272
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I think a new sincerity or informed ignorance is the only way forward.

    Call it post-postmodern sport appreciation.

    I'm forming the movement for post-kitsch neo-ironic cycling now.

    I can de-construct a bike, if that's any help.
    I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 13,411
    rob churchill wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I think a new sincerity or informed ignorance is the only way forward.

    Call it post-postmodern sport appreciation.

    I'm forming the movement for post-kitsch neo-ironic cycling now.

    I can de-construct a bike, if that's any help.

    Can you reconstruct it again? And give it a clean in between? If so, the yes, that would be a great, great help.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • rob churchill
    rob churchill Posts: 272
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    rob churchill wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I think a new sincerity or informed ignorance is the only way forward.

    Call it post-postmodern sport appreciation.

    I'm forming the movement for post-kitsch neo-ironic cycling now.

    I can de-construct a bike, if that's any help.

    Can you reconstruct it again? And give it a clean in between? If so, the yes, that would be a great, great help.

    Of course. It's just that having dismantled the whole thing I can't guarantee to put it back together in any form you'd recognise.

    Much like a TRC with cycling, really.
    I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.
  • Garry H
    Garry H Posts: 6,639
    Slightly off-topic a wee bit, but does anyone think that the risk of being outed as a cheat down the line (by means of subsequent testing in the future) would deter riders from doping in the present? ie they would have to agree to samples being tested at any time.
  • rob churchill
    rob churchill Posts: 272
    Garry H wrote:
    Slightly off-topic a wee bit, but does anyone think that the risk of being outed as a cheat down the line (by means of subsequent testing in the future) would deter riders from doping in the present? ie they would have to agree to samples being tested at any time.

    It couldn't hurt. I was surprised to read in the USADA reasoned judgement that there were LA samples that the doping agencies couldn't retest without his permission. There should be a rule that competitors must accede to any reasonable requirement of their governing bodies and ADA's, or face suspension.
    I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,175
    Garry H wrote:
    Slightly off-topic a wee bit, but does anyone think that the risk of being outed as a cheat down the line (by means of subsequent testing in the future) would deter riders from doping in the present? ie they would have to agree to samples being tested at any time.

    Oh you are such a fool thinking that this is an off topic subject that should be neglected.

    But you are clearly not a fool. You have nailed it. You are talking about retro-testing - the best bad idea we have. Tesing old samples with new tests. I think everyone thinks that would be a good idea.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Garry H
    Garry H Posts: 6,639
    rob churchill wrote:
    It couldn't hurt. I was surprised to read in the USADA reasoned judgement that there were LA samples that the doping agencies couldn't retest without his permission. There should be a rule that competitors must accede to any reasonable requirement of their governing bodies and ADA's, or face suspension.

    That's what I was thinking, make it part of the deal.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,175
    I find it intersting that many of the internet commentators who are the most intersted in 'Truth' are those who are unwilling to reveal who they are.

    So, twitter activists - if you want true transparency and truth, let us know who you are.

    Not you Suze - we know you - I'll give you credit for that.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    This thing needs to be reversed, I've been thinking about JV's blog.... Let's make testing profitable and independent, that's got to help.

    But what do we really want? Clean riders. Can we pay them to be clean? Let's pay the riders for every test they pass, and every day they prove themselves to be clean (how? find a way and you get the reward... big brother found a way to watch people 24hrs a day). Offer them cash to retest their old samples with new tests. Let's encourage the peloton to self-police... give (proven) evidence against a team-mate and you get their prize money / palmares.

    Money made the peloton dirty, money is the only way to get it clean again.
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data

Categories