'98 retro testing...

1…89101113

Comments

  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    RichN95 wrote:
    I'm not full of hypocracy at all. I'm one of the few that has some empathy for these riders.

    There seems to be some idea with some that these riders doped in isolation entirely of their own free will. They didn't.

    They didn't introduce doping to cycling
    Mostly they didn't encourage it
    They were in the large majority, not a minority
    They were powerless to change it
    If they hadn't done it, someone else would
    In the main they were victims of the system, not perpetrators

    So people should get off their high horse expecting apologies and confessions from riders who they've barely heard of for doping in races they never watched.

    Ergo they cheated. And it's not about aopologies and confessions. It's about identifying the cheats, getting them out and moving on.

    And for the avoidance of doubt I have been watching and cheering since the 70s. I was in Paris in 98, and chose to leave before the final stage. I was so sickened by the whole affair.
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    RichN95 wrote:
    Yellow Peril wrote:

    Really? what was their day job then? I could have sworn it was pro cycling.

    You're full of hypocrysy here Rich on the one had you saying get over it they just cheated at sport, then you are banging on about the great sacrifices they made to get there.
    I'm not full of hypocracy at all. I'm one of the few that has some empathy for these riders.

    There seems to be some idea with some that these riders doped in isolation entirely of their own free will. They didn't.
    They didn't introduce doping to cycling
    Mostly they didn't encourage it
    They were in the large majority, not a minority
    They were powerless to change it
    If they hadn't done it, someone else would
    In the main they were victims of the system, not perpetrators

    So people should get off their high horse expecting apologies and confessions from riders who they've barely heard of for doping in races they never watched.

    I think you'll find it's not about then but about now. look at that quote of yours I've emboldened. You call the dopers victims but even when they are busted they maintain the Omerta. Are they still victims if they perpetuate the silence?


    I'm quite happy for anyone confessing today to keep their job but then again I'm not their employer. they might get lucky (Steeles ) or not (Zabel). I won't though respect anyone for half truths and Omerta...victims...pfft.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    oneof1982 wrote:
    Ergo they cheated. And it's not about aopologies and confessions. It's about identifying the cheats, getting them out and moving on.

    And for the avoidance of doubt I have been watching and cheering since the 70s. I was in Paris in 98, and chose to leave before the final stage. I was so sickened by the whole affair.
    So you believe that anyone who has done something wrong, even if they were coerced by intense pressure is incapable of change and must be branded for their mistake forevermore unless they confess so that they must be judged by sanctimonious nobodies.
    Do you extend the same values to other areas of life. Does everyone who smoked a bit of pot at university have to confess or lose their job? Does every teenage shoplifter from the seventies now have to publically apologise for their wrong doing or face the courts?
    I take it you have told your employers every mistake you have ever made. Every lie you have told. Every ill advised descison you have taken.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    Yellow Peril wrote:

    I think you'll find it's not about then but about now. look at that quote of yours I've emboldened. You call the dopers victims but even when they are busted they maintain the Omerta. Are they still victims if they perpetuate the silence?
    Maybe we should persecute victims of child abuse who keep quiet too.

    A lot of the riders aren't proud of what they did and have turned their backs on it long ago. Forcing those that are already quietly part of the solution to publicly revisit those days is not helping anyone. What is happening now is important - not what happened in 1998.

    All you really want are sacrificial scapegoats to pay a penance to you for the suffering that you never actually experienced.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    RichN95 wrote:
    oneof1982 wrote:
    Ergo they cheated. And it's not about aopologies and confessions. It's about identifying the cheats, getting them out and moving on.

    And for the avoidance of doubt I have been watching and cheering since the 70s. I was in Paris in 98, and chose to leave before the final stage. I was so sickened by the whole affair.
    So you believe that anyone who has done something wrong, even if they were coerced by intense pressure is incapable of change and must be branded for their mistake forevermore unless they confess so that they must be judged by sanctimonious nobodies.
    Do you extend the same values to other areas of life. Does everyone who smoked a bit of pot at university have to confess or lose their job? Does every teenage shoplifter from the seventies now have to publically apologise for their wrong doing or face the courts?
    I take it you have told your employers every mistake you have ever made. Every lie you have told. Every ill advised descison you have taken.

    Have you ever heard of moral relativism?

    This discussion is in the context of a series of wrongs that fundamentally impacted on, and changed the outcomes of what we know as the sport of professional cycling.

    And no I don't "believe that anyone..........etc.etc."

    I believe that cycling has got itself into a dark whole, where cheating was, for many people the norm. It needs radical and somewhat drastic action to allow it to move on. Part of that action will be saying "I know you did it, and I'm sorry, but it is not okay". Part of that will, and already does, involve some people losing their jobs. So be it.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    Rich, I agree with your general point that there is little to be gained in hunting down individuals who doped in the 90s and punishing them but your attempt to present these cyclists as tender victims of a terrible regime (and draw parallels with victims of child abuse for pete's sake) just doesn't wash. They had a choice to make and they made it. They've subsequently had a choice to talk about it or not and they've made that choice too.
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    RichN95 wrote:
    So you believe that anyone who has done something wrong, even if they were coerced by intense pressure is incapable of change and must be branded for their mistake forevermore unless they confess so that they must be judged by sanctimonious nobodies.
    Do you extend the same values to other areas of life. Does everyone who smoked a bit of pot at university have to confess or lose their job? Does every teenage shoplifter from the seventies now have to publically apologise for their wrong doing or face the courts?
    I take it you have told your employers every mistake you have ever made. Every lie you have told. Every ill advised descison you have taken.
    Seemingly a good point, but your analogies don't work... if the pot had contributed to the smoker getting their future job (at the expense of someone who hadn't digressed) then that would be unfair, right? Time doesn't make the shoplifting right, nor does mob rule (someone drew a good comparison with the London riots earlier).

    Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with ex-dopers continuing to work in the sport. Particularly those that are willing to detail their indiscretions and help with the clean up process. I just don't agree with your view that these cheats are victims who should be absolved of all responsibility.
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    Paulie W wrote:
    Rich, I agree with your general point that there is little to be gained in hunting down individuals who doped in the 90s and punishing them but your attempt to present these cyclists as tender victims of a terrible regime (and draw parallels with victims of child abuse for pete's sake) just doesn't wash. They had a choice to make and they made it. They've subsequently had a choice to talk about it or not and they've made that choice too.
    It's really simple to make moral judgements for a nice comfortable middle class household with a steady job and no worries beyond Waitrose running out of fresh ciabatta.

    It's not so easy if you grew up in East Germany in the 80s, live with you parents and two younger sisters below the poverty line in a grubby two bedroom flat in a tower block surrounded by high unemployment. And you haven't got much in the way qualifications as you've devoted everything to your talent. So when you're pressurised by your employer that you know everyone else is taking or throw away all that effort and return to the poverty and hoping to grab the odd shift on the docks. The moral high ground tends to give way below your feet then. How many years do you want to hold that man accountable?

    Given instead the opportunity to compete clean against other clean riders, almost all of the dopers you seek to condemn would have jumped at the chance. But they weren't given that opportunity. It was dope or get lost. Their individual desicion to dope didn't deprive any clean rider a chance - it deprived another doper a chance.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    RichN95 wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    Rich, I agree with your general point that there is little to be gained in hunting down individuals who doped in the 90s and punishing them but your attempt to present these cyclists as tender victims of a terrible regime (and draw parallels with victims of child abuse for pete's sake) just doesn't wash. They had a choice to make and they made it. They've subsequently had a choice to talk about it or not and they've made that choice too.
    It's really simple to make moral judgements for a nice comfortable middle class household with a steady job and no worries beyond Waitrose running out of fresh ciabatta.

    It's not so easy if you grew up in East Germany in the 80s, live with you parents and two younger sisters below the poverty line in a grubby two bedroom flat in a tower block surrounded by high unemployment. And you haven't got much in the way qualifications as you've devoted everything to your talent. So when you're pressurised by your employer that you know everyone else is taking or throw away all that effort and return to the poverty and hoping to grab the odd shift on the docks. The moral high ground tends to give way below your feet then. How many years do you want to hold that man accountable?

    Given instead the opportunity to compete clean against other clean riders, almost all of the dopers you seek to condemn would have jumped at the chance. But they weren't given that opportunity. It was dope or get lost. Their individual desicion to dope didn't deprive any clean rider a chance - it deprived another doper a chance.

    Youve made the same point over and over again - everyone has heard you. So stop with the bleeding hearts bollox now - I'm not actually condemning anyone for their decision but you continue to present it as if there was no other option and what I personally have taken exception to are your half-arsed analogies. There are lots of failed sportsmen/women in the world. Some of them no doubt live still in tower blocks in Dresden or wherever but some are no doubt living perfectly happy, fullfilled lives.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    98% of people on here would've done the same as the 98 riders in the same circumstances

    But anyway, sacking people for what happened in 98 is not making the sport as it stands any cleaner. It's already a different sport in terms of doping and many of these guys should have a future in it
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    nic_77 wrote:
    Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with ex-dopers continuing to work in the sport. Particularly those that are willing to detail their indiscretions and help with the clean up process. I just don't agree with your view that these cheats are victims who should be absolved of all responsibility.
    How does this work. What can they do beyond say they bought x and did y with it. What relevance do '98 doping methods have to what may be happening today beyond our trivial gossipy pleasure?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    edited July 2013
    Maybe everyone who read Armstrong's book or cheered Pantani or didn't stop watching after Festina or Cofidis or Puerto or Rasmussen yet now want their pound of flesh should be banned from watching Eurosport for life. Because you are complicit in this too. You had numerous chances to turn away, but few of you did. In fact many first tuned in when this was all already there.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • mididoctors
    mididoctors Posts: 18,793
    iainf72 wrote:
    98% of people on here would've done the same as the 98 riders in the same circumstances

    But anyway, sacking people for what happened in 98 is not making the sport as it stands any cleaner. It's already a different sport in terms of doping and many of these guys should have a future in it

    I suspect thats right

    who gets a future is contingent on a whole bunch of stuff though
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    RichN95 wrote:
    Yellow Peril wrote:

    I think you'll find it's not about then but about now. look at that quote of yours I've emboldened. You call the dopers victims but even when they are busted they maintain the Omerta. Are they still victims if they perpetuate the silence?
    Maybe we should persecute victims of child abuse who keep quiet too.

    A lot of the riders aren't proud of what they did and have turned their backs on it long ago. Forcing those that are already quietly part of the solution to publicly revisit those days is not helping anyone. What is happening now is important - not what happened in 1998.

    All you really want are sacrificial scapegoats to pay a penance to you for the suffering that you never actually experienced.

    You can see a parallel with dopers being the victims of child abuse, really?
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    RichN95 wrote:
    Maybe everyone who read Armstrong's book or cheered Pantani or didn't stop watching after Festina or Cofidis or Puerto or Rasmussen yet now want their pound of flesh should be banned from watching Eurosport for life. Because you are complicit in this too. You had numerous chances to turn away, but few of you did. In fact many first tuned in when this was all already there.


    What, and let the dopers and their apologists win? No chance.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    oneof1982 wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Maybe everyone who read Armstrong's book or cheered Pantani or didn't stop watching after Festina or Cofidis or Puerto or Rasmussen yet now want their pound of flesh should be banned from watching Eurosport for life. Because you are complicit in this too. You had numerous chances to turn away, but few of you did. In fact many first tuned in when this was all already there.


    What, and let the dopers and their apologists win? No chance.

    The only thing you could have done to stop the doping was not to watch. Did you? Did we?

    No...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • mididoctors
    mididoctors Posts: 18,793
    RichN95 wrote:
    Maybe everyone who read Armstrong's book or cheered Pantani or stop watching after Festina or Cofidis or Puerto or Rasmussen yet now want their pound of flesh should be banned from watching Eurosport for life. Because you are complicit in this too. You had numerous chances to turn away, but few of you did. In fact many first tuned in when this was all already there.

    haven't you got that backwards?
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    ddraver wrote:
    oneof1982 wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Maybe everyone who read Armstrong's book or cheered Pantani or didn't stop watching after Festina or Cofidis or Puerto or Rasmussen yet now want their pound of flesh should be banned from watching Eurosport for life. Because you are complicit in this too. You had numerous chances to turn away, but few of you did. In fact many first tuned in when this was all already there.


    What, and let the dopers and their apologists win? No chance.

    The only thing you could have done to stop the doping was not to watch. Did you? Did we?

    No...

    I genuinely have no idea what you mean or what your argument is.

    As I said above, I was mightly hacked off in 98, but I was back watching a year later for the tour of renewal (ha). It wasn't until the retro testing of the 99 blood tests in c.2006, and the publication of the results in a series of papers that I became convinced that LA was doping.

    Since then, yes, I have been absolutely clear that the sport needs a clear out. At last it is happeing, and no, I have no sympathy for the protagonists who kept the sport in the gutter for all these years.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    Yellow Peril wrote:

    You can see a parallel with dopers being the victims of child abuse, really?
    Not really, no.

    But this idea that anyone who has not paraded a period of their life that they are not proud of for the digestition and judgement of nobodies and pleaded them for forgiveness is in some way a continuing part of the problem is horseshit.

    I'm betting that you personally did sod all to combat doping in the last 25 years, so I don't see why making you aware of someone's doping now is going have bearing on the sport's future.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    oneof1982 wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    oneof1982 wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Maybe everyone who read Armstrong's book or cheered Pantani or didn't stop watching after Festina or Cofidis or Puerto or Rasmussen yet now want their pound of flesh should be banned from watching Eurosport for life. Because you are complicit in this too. You had numerous chances to turn away, but few of you did. In fact many first tuned in when this was all already there.


    What, and let the dopers and their apologists win? No chance.

    The only thing you could have done to stop the doping was not to watch. Did you? Did we?

    No...

    I genuinely have no idea what you mean or what your argument is.

    As I said above, I was mightly hacked off in 98, but I was back watching a year later for the tour of renewal (ha). It wasn't until the retro testing of the 99 blood tests in c.2006, and the publication of the results in a series of papers that I became convinced that LA was doping.

    Since then, yes, I have been absolutely clear that the sport needs a clear out. At last it is happeing, and no, I have no sympathy for the protagonists who kept the sport in the gutter for all these years.

    If you watch, you increase the ratings which sells more adverts which gets bigger sponsors giving more money to pay for more drugs. Want to stop doing? Stop watching ProRoad cycling. Within a season it ll be clean as a whistle...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    ddraver wrote:
    If you watch, you increase the ratings which sells more adverts which gets bigger sponsors giving more money to pay for more drugs. Want to stop doing? Stop watching ProRoad cycling. Within a season it ll be clean as a whistle...

    I think I prefered it when i didn't understand your argument. :D
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    OnYourRight wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    98% of people on here would've done the same as the 98 riders in the same circumstances
    Unbelievable conjecture. Have you never done the right thing when doing the wrong thing would have enriched you in some way? Everyone I know has. We’ve returned lost wallets, not shoplifted when it would have been easy to, bought more expensive products that were produced in better working conditions, turned down jobs or promotions that conflicted with our beliefs, etc. Doing things because you believe in them is actually the norm for most of us, even if we frequently disappoint ourselves. And in my experience, if anything the working classes are more likely to stick to their principles in the face of tempting wrongful gains. Maybe it’s because they can’t rely on sophistry like moral relativism to justify wrong behaviour to themselves.
    The problem you have is that you think that if all of the 198 starters of the 1998 Tour had all turned down opportunity to dope then we would have had a clean sport. We wouldn't. The sport would be exactly the same - just the names of the dopers would be different.
    Trying to scapegoat individual riders for the hole the sport found itself in is idiocy.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    dougzz wrote:
    nic_77 wrote:
    Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with ex-dopers continuing to work in the sport. Particularly those that are willing to detail their indiscretions and help with the clean up process. I just don't agree with your view that these cheats are victims who should be absolved of all responsibility.
    How does this work. What can they do beyond say they bought x and did y with it. What relevance do '98 doping methods have to what may be happening today beyond our trivial gossipy pleasure?
    Not much in a practical sense - I agree their information is largely meaningless, unless they fancy condemning a few of their peers who haven't been caught.

    But an ex-doper who's owned up can do a lot for today's riders, you know "hey guys, I've been there - we were under pressure to dope, I did, it's wrong, it's not worth it etc etc." It could mean a lot to someone in the wrong place at the right time. It would certainly be better than giving off the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' vibe of omerta. It's the Garmin approach.
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    RichN95 wrote:
    The problem you have is that you think that if all of the 198 starters of the 1998 Tour had all turned down opportunity to dope then we would have had a clean sport. We wouldn't. The sport would be exactly the same - just the names of the dopers would be different.
    Is that true though? If a significant number of those riders had come out and said "this pressure to dope just has to stop" and named some names wouldn't we be near enough where we are today, just in 1998. If we believe the balance is shifting now, we could have got here sooner (assuming a few brave people had shown a bit of backbone).
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    edited July 2013
    nic_77 wrote:

    But an ex-doper who's owned up can do a lot for today's riders, you know "hey guys, I've been there - we were under pressure to dope, I did, it's wrong, it's not worth it etc etc." It could mean a lot to someone in the wrong place at the right time. It would certainly be better than giving off the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' vibe of omerta. It's the Garmin approach.
    But does that rider have to admit it to you and me to do that? All they have to say is you don't need to dope - that's all they need to hear.
    And as for the 'Garmin approach' - Vaughters managed that quite happily without publicly admitting anything until last year. It wouldn't exist or would have failed if he was forced to resign because not come clean earlier (and even lied about it). The Garmin approach is based on not compelling riders to disclose their past unless required to do so by the authorities and on an understanding that the riders were not personally to blame to blame for the environment.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    nic_77 wrote:
    dougzz wrote:
    nic_77 wrote:
    Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with ex-dopers continuing to work in the sport. Particularly those that are willing to detail their indiscretions and help with the clean up process. I just don't agree with your view that these cheats are victims who should be absolved of all responsibility.
    How does this work. What can they do beyond say they bought x and did y with it. What relevance do '98 doping methods have to what may be happening today beyond our trivial gossipy pleasure?
    Not much in a practical sense - I agree their information is largely meaningless, unless they fancy condemning a few of their peers who haven't been caught.

    But an ex-doper who's owned up can do a lot for today's riders, you know "hey guys, I've been there - we were under pressure to dope, I did, it's wrong, it's not worth it etc etc." It could mean a lot to someone in the wrong place at the right time. It would certainly be better than giving off the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' vibe of omerta. It's the Garmin approach.


    Here's an interesting discussion point. Let's take 2 riders of the same age: Andrew Talansky and Peter Kennaugh.

    Talansky: rides for Garmin. Run by ex-doper, at least 5 team mates ex-dopers. Dont know the name of his coach, but its certainly in-house, under Bobby Ketchell.

    Kennaugh: rides for GB and Sky. Both run by Brailsford. Coached by Rod Ellingworth. Has grown up in BC and the GB Academy and track programme, who've had a no-needles policy since 96, and are frequently held up as a shining example of a sporting body with a very strong AD stance.

    Just because neither Brailsford not Ellingworth are ex-dopers, does that make it any more likely that Kennaugh will fall from the path of righteousness, or that they run an environment in which such things are likely - or indeed that anomalies in performance through the training data files, or blood tests done in house, wouldnt be spotted?

    Personally I think neither Garmin nor Sky have environments that are conducive to riders doping - but I dont buy this business of you had to be there having experienced the temptations of doping, to ward off the young riders of today.

    You set the right environment for doing things the right way. You provide the right support for the riders. You make clear the consequences if the rider dopes. And you monitor your riders performance etc.

    My parents weren't criminals but that didnt stop them from bringing me up to know right from wrong.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    nic_77 wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    The problem you have is that you think that if all of the 198 starters of the 1998 Tour had all turned down opportunity to dope then we would have had a clean sport. We wouldn't. The sport would be exactly the same - just the names of the dopers would be different.
    Is that true though? If a significant number of those riders had come out and said "this pressure to dope just has to stop" and named some names wouldn't we be near enough where we are today, just in 1998. If we believe the balance is shifting now, we could have got here sooner (assuming a few brave people had shown a bit of backbone).
    I think it's broadly true, as is Iain's 98% comment. Of course none of it's provable one way or the other. If people had broken ranks they'd have been shouted down and dismissed as poor cyclists that couldn't cut it and therefore blamed a drugs problem that didn't exist. "They have their experts and we have ours, and frankly I like ours" is only a few months ago.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    My parents weren't criminals but that didnt stop them from bringing me up to know right from wrong.
    So they've not come clean to you yet? :D
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    dougzz wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    My parents weren't criminals but that didnt stop them from bringing me up to know right from wrong.
    So they've not come clean to you yet? :D


    Richmond Racer's dad might have been known to raid her Christmas sweetie haul when she wasnt looking, but Ronnie Biggs he certainly was not :)
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    RichN95 wrote:
    Yellow Peril wrote:

    You can see a parallel with dopers being the victims of child abuse, really?
    Not really, no.

    But this idea that anyone who has not paraded a period of their life that they are not proud of for the digestition and judgement of nobodies and pleaded them for forgiveness is in some way a continuing part of the problem is horseshit.

    I'm betting that you personally did sod all to combat doping in the last 25 years, so I don't see why making you aware of someone's doping now is going have bearing on the sport's future.



    They don't owe it to me or you they owe it to the future of the sport, the next generation of riders and in some cases their employers. They can confess to all the right people behind close doors if they wish as long as the Omerta is broken.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition

Categories