Media and doping
Comments
-
Joelsim wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Like my badly enforced steak joke ban, every time i come across a pointless or spurious doping accusation I'm going to question their cycling fan credentials. Relentlessly.
You are allowed to be a cycling fan and suspicious aren't you?
Are you a real cycling fan?
Prove it. I've seen the suspicious performance.
Give me the data. Now.
You don't have it? Who are you? Dave Brailsford?
You obviously hate cycling. You're as bad as Armstrong.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Joelsim wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Like my badly enforced steak joke ban, every time i come across a pointless or spurious doping accusation I'm going to question their cycling fan credentials. Relentlessly.
You are allowed to be a cycling fan and suspicious aren't you?
Are you a real cycling fan?
Prove it. I've seen the suspicious performance.
Give me the data. Now.
You don't have it? Who are you? Dave Brailsford?
You obviously hate cycling. You're as bad as Armstrong.
Well I don't race and I don't belong to a club, but I ride almost every day to some degree as do my boys, the youngest of which at 6 years and 2 weeks old cycled 18 miles with me on Sunday from Tooting to Peckham and back.
And I have hair which rules SDB out.
And I'm not a total cnut either which rules LA out.0 -
Pfft no data.
Obviously lying.
I scanned your posts for all of 6 seconds so I know you're no real fan. I did it all on the Internet too so it's definitely legit.
Why hide the data? Cheater.
Etc.
Tedious isn't it?0 -
Froboz wrote:ThomThom wrote:Said on the day that we get another epo-positive
Precisely. But hey, let's just sweep everything under the carpet and declare the sport clean :roll:
To be fair Big Maggie and Dave Harmon were calling that particular ride as dodgy as it was happening so it's not like we're burying our heads in the sand.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no data.
Obviously lying.
I scanned your posts for all of 6 seconds so I know you're no real fan. I did it all on the Internet too so it's definitely legit.
Why hide the data? Cheater.
Etc.
Tedious isn't it?
Well he managed the 8 mile return in an hour and 3 minutes, albeit was probably showing a high caffeine level from the Coca Cola I'd let him have at Peckham Rye! You'll have to believe me on that as I haven't signed him up to Strava yet.
It is tedious, yes. But not surprising.0 -
cyclingsheep wrote:Froboz wrote:ThomThom wrote:Said on the day that we get another epo-positive
Precisely. But hey, let's just sweep everything under the carpet and declare the sport clean :roll:
To be fair Big Maggie and Dave Harmon were calling that particular ride as dodgy as it was happening so it's not like we're burying our heads in the sand.
Aye, Ron Jeremy on the large ring throughout.0 -
Pross wrote:Let's face it, it isn't just the media. There are plenty of people who claim to be cycling fans but cannot live without the excitement that doping brings to the extent they have to turn every thread into a 'debate' on the subject. The sad truth is that without doping the sport has no relevance to them. They claim to want a clean sport when it is the very opposite of what they want. I suspect they visit the gossip page of a paper before the sports page.
+100 to this.Correlation is not causation.0 -
RichN95 wrote:The media say they have the right to ask the 'tough' questions, and they do. But then they keep asking the same generic "tell us why we should believe you" question over and over again. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Isn't that what happens when the stock answer has always been 'I've never failed a test, so I must be clean'?
No-one believes it any more. It's gone from having doubts about someone doping to assuming they are doping.
And with very good reason given what has happened over the last few years. How else can people find out?
This is a problem which has been caused by the UCI for turning a blind eye for so long, so that it was impossible for riders to not dope and have a decent career.0 -
Joelsim wrote:RichN95 wrote:The media say they have the right to ask the 'tough' questions, and they do. But then they keep asking the same generic "tell us why we should believe you" question over and over again. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Isn't that what happens when the stock answer has always been 'I've never failed a test, so I must be clean'?
No-one believes it any more. It's gone from having doubts about someone doping to assuming they are doping.
And with very good reason given what has happened over the last few years. How else can people find out?
This is a problem which has been caused by the UCI for turning a blind eye for so long, so that it was impossible for riders to not dope and have a decent career.
No it's what happens when journalists are lazy but want an easy generic doping story. Here's how it works
Rider, we'll call him Smith, does a good performance
Journalist asks "what would you say to those that doubt your performance"
Smith then says the usual stock answers about never doping, training hard - which is really all he can say.
The the journalist takes the quotes and runs a story with a headline like "Smith denies doping allegations", with a story almost the same as one they wrote for the last cyclist.
But there never where any specific allegations in the first place. It BS lazy journalism and it's all too common.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:Joelsim wrote:RichN95 wrote:The media say they have the right to ask the 'tough' questions, and they do. But then they keep asking the same generic "tell us why we should believe you" question over and over again. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Isn't that what happens when the stock answer has always been 'I've never failed a test, so I must be clean'?
No-one believes it any more. It's gone from having doubts about someone doping to assuming they are doping.
And with very good reason given what has happened over the last few years. How else can people find out?
This is a problem which has been caused by the UCI for turning a blind eye for so long, so that it was impossible for riders to not dope and have a decent career.
No isn't what happens when journalists are lazy but want an easy generic doping story. Here's how it works
Rider, we'll call him Smith, does a good performance
Journalist asks "what would you say to those that doubt you performance"
Smith then says the usual stock answers about never doping, training hard - which is really all he can say.
The the journalist takes the quotes and runs a story with a headline like "Smith denies doping allegations". Journalist then has his anti-doping credentials.
But there never where any specific allegations in the first place. It BS lazy journalism and it's all too common.
It is lazy. It's not uncommon. It's not surprising. Both sides caught between a rock and a hard place.
Anyway, I'm really bored now, going to chat some racing.0 -
despite 90% of everything being said in the media pro and against certain riders is BS I think its good pressure is applied to the jersey (and team)... you guys better be on the level cos its going to get even uglier if not.
the DB wada response? why not?... if the journos keep it up and the investigative types do their thing either they will turn up something or not
simple.
its not going to go away in a year or five
dig in cos its going to drag on and on and on and there is no other option"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 pm0 -
mididoctors wrote:despite 90% of everything being said in the media pro and against certain riders is BS I think its good pressure is applied to the jersey (and team)... you guys better be on the level cos its going to get even uglier if not.
the DB wada response? why not?... if the journos keep it up and the investigative types do their thing either they will turn up something or not
simple.
its not going to go away in a year or five
dig in cos its going to drag on and on and on and there is no other option
+10 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Argh who cares.
I pitty people who can't enjoy what happens on the road.
Why d'ya watch it? I doubt many of us watched much in the pre epo days. If it got you hooked then mtfu.
So many athletes still talk about that Ben Johnson sprint. It's a sight they never forgot and blew them away at the time.
That feeling can't be taken back.
Ideally I want no doping for obvious reasons but I'll be f#cked if I let it ruin what I like about cycling.
This post just about sums it up for me, I'm a lurker on this part of forum now mainly due to all the doping bollox. I've stood at the roadside for probably over half a dozen tours since 2000 and I'll continue to go in future with the intention of taking it in as I always have with all the sports I watch, enjoy the narrative and when it's finished move on and look forward to the next installment. If it turns out in the future it was nefarious in some way I just accept it as another part of the story. Why worry too much about it?0 -
Joelsim wrote:One question. How many athletes in other sports have been caught doping in the last couple of months?
OK how many in cycling? Quite a few.
Those who suggest the sport is verging on clean are living in cloud cuckoo land in my opinion. I'm also not suggesting other sports are clean either.
Without a shadow of doubt it is cleaner than it was a decade ago...but then again it's not difficult to be cleaner than 99% of riders doping.
Let's also not forget that the doping precedent in cycling was set many decades ago, to the extent that it has always been the culture.
I will be very surprised if a number aren't caught in the next couple of weeks, Santambrogio's test was right at the start of the Giro yet the positive only came out after the race had finished. Bertie, no doubt, is being used as a pincushion at the moment which would probably explain why he's nowhere near the level he was in 2007-9.
The only way it will be truly stamped out is by lifetime bans for anyone caught, at the moment it's just a slap on the wrist and then welcomed back in. There are many many riders who have been linked to doping who are still in the peloton.
It may not be clean free, but the point you raise about other sports also relates to the point im making. Yes, other sports have suffered with doping, take athletics at the moment with the 100m sprinters.
But the biggest difference here is that no one at the BBC, ITV etc, will go up to Usain Bolt at the end of a race hes just won and immediately ask him if hes been doping. Its naturally assumed hes the fastest runner on the planet, in fact they go the other way and blow sunshine up his ass. Whereas Froome (or whoever wins) is put upon the minute he crosses the line. Its not that hes just produced an epic performace, its debated he might be on drugs.
Did anyone go up to Alex Ferguson when United won the Prem and say " so Sir Alex, a runaway title win, were the players using anything?" Did anyone go up to Andy Murray with " so Andy...you finally won Wimbledon and beat the worlds No.1....a bit suspect eh? Using anything for that performance?", the Lions Tour...the Ashes? You wont see it even hinted at, although these sports have also had their drug problems in the past, but the minute a bike racer wins its a 50/50 win, it could be talent but its naturally assumed he could also have taken something.
Personally i love watching the sport regardless of who gets done/caught, but this side of it does get on my man boobs.0 -
EPO Delivery Man wrote:Joelsim wrote:One question. How many athletes in other sports have been caught doping in the last couple of months?
OK how many in cycling? Quite a few.
Those who suggest the sport is verging on clean are living in cloud cuckoo land in my opinion. I'm also not suggesting other sports are clean either.
Without a shadow of doubt it is cleaner than it was a decade ago...but then again it's not difficult to be cleaner than 99% of riders doping.
Let's also not forget that the doping precedent in cycling was set many decades ago, to the extent that it has always been the culture.
I will be very surprised if a number aren't caught in the next couple of weeks, Santambrogio's test was right at the start of the Giro yet the positive only came out after the race had finished. Bertie, no doubt, is being used as a pincushion at the moment which would probably explain why he's nowhere near the level he was in 2007-9.
The only way it will be truly stamped out is by lifetime bans for anyone caught, at the moment it's just a slap on the wrist and then welcomed back in. There are many many riders who have been linked to doping who are still in the peloton.
It may not be clean free, but the point you raise about other sports also relates to the point im making. Yes, other sports have suffered with doping, take athletics at the moment with the 100m sprinters.
But the biggest difference here is that no one at the BBC, ITV etc, will go up to Usain Bolt at the end of a race hes just won and immediately ask him if hes been doping. Its naturally assumed hes the fastest runner on the planet, in fact they go the other way and blow sunshine up his ass. Whereas Froome (or whoever wins) is put upon the minute he crosses the line. Its not that hes just produced an epic performace, its debated he might be on drugs.
Did anyone go up to Alex Ferguson when United won the Prem and say " so Sir Alex, a runaway title win, were the players using anything?" Did anyone go up to Andy Murray with " so Andy...you finally won Wimbledon and beat the worlds No.1....a bit suspect eh? Using anything for that performance?", the Lions Tour...the Ashes? You wont see it even hinted at, although these sports have also had their drug problems in the past, but the minute a bike racer wins its a 50/50 win, it could be talent but its naturally assumed he could also have taken something.
Personally i love watching the sport regardless of who gets done/caught, but this side of it does get on my man boobs.
Do you think Alex Ferguson is on something.
I reckon he necks Sanatagon.
Just my opinion I have no substantiated evidence.0 -
Exactly. The questions might as well be "When did you stop doping your team?" because there's no good answer, just different sorts of bad answer which will be dressed up as a doper's denials.RichN95 wrote:Joelsim wrote:RichN95 wrote:The media say they have the right to ask the 'tough' questions, and they do. But then they keep asking the same generic "tell us why we should believe you" question over and over again. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Isn't that what happens when the stock answer has always been 'I've never failed a test, so I must be clean'?
No-one believes it any more. It's gone from having doubts about someone doping to assuming they are doping.
And with very good reason given what has happened over the last few years. How else can people find out?
This is a problem which has been caused by the UCI for turning a blind eye for so long, so that it was impossible for riders to not dope and have a decent career.
No it's what happens when journalists are lazy but want an easy generic doping story. Here's how it works
Rider, we'll call him Smith, does a good performance
Journalist asks "what would you say to those that doubt your performance"
Smith then says the usual stock answers about never doping, training hard - which is really all he can say.
The the journalist takes the quotes and runs a story with a headline like "Smith denies doping allegations", with a story almost the same as one they wrote for the last cyclist.
But there never where any specific allegations in the first place. It BS lazy journalism and it's all too common.N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0
