In defence of the Optimistic Realist.

velo_vicar

Sorry this is an unashamed thread to indulge me as i get something off my chest:

It seems to me that when it comes to debating cycling there is tendancy to force people into into one of two camps; those who think its clean and those who think all cyclists are still cheating. The 'clean brigade' are accused by the 'Cynics' of being fanboys and repeating the mistakes of beleiving Armstrong. The 'Cynics' are accused of throwing mud everywhere hoping some sticks. i want to say that there are other 'camps' which the majority of fans probably belong to. I am an optimistic realist when it comes to cycling. As a long time fan i am realistic about cycling that there will always be cheats and the possibilty of cheating, but as an optimist i am also hopeful that there can be a time/era when cycling is on the whole clean. I am desperate that if someone is cheating no matter how big they are or how much i like them, they are caught and exposed, but i am equally desperate not to miss the (first?) extrodinary clean performance and in fact to celebrate it. It is risky, i don't want to be fooled again but the joy of sport is witnessing extrodinary physical performances. Cycling has got itself stuck as the very thing that should invoke the joy of watching the sport (the extrodinary performance) has become the very thing that spoils the sport for many because of the suspicion it brings. If there is no hope then people should stop putting themselves through it, like a battered wife just walk away. But please don't just lump those who want to trust again in the catagory of naive or fanboy.
What i find very intriguing about Froome's recent performaces is that he is forcing a polerised position. His performances are either Great or a fraud. they aren't ok or just good enough. If he is hiding something he is with these performances doing a really bad job of hiding. Now i am with David Walsh on this, yes there are things that prevent us from saying 100% he/sky are clean but we are a long way from having evidence (failed cortisone test/bullying/witnesses) that he is doping. All we have is extrodinary performance which as has been stated elsewhere is the point of sport. One thing the Armstrong saga has shown us is that no matter how much legal or political weight you can throw around the truth will come out eventually. Retro testing will pick up any product that can't be tested for now. This i beleive allows me as a fan to watch a performace and enjoy it knowing that if it is not clean it will be revealed at some point. So i want to say it is legitimate to believe now without being a fanboy or naive but simply wanting to enjoy this great sport for what it is. It could be maybe that Froome is one of the Greats and if so what a shame it would be if Cycing fans missed that. We have had a lot stolen away from us by the cheats lets not let them steal more than they have to. Here ends the sermon.

slim_boy_fat

Good post although a liberal smattering of the return key may have helped.

MassimoLuigi

As original posted by Velo Vicar, but with "a liberal smattering of the return key" for those born with with an OCD disposition...

"It seems to me that when it comes to debating cycling there is tendency to force people into one of two camps; those who think its clean and those who think all cyclists are still cheating. The 'clean brigade' are accused by the 'Cynics' of being fan-boys and repeating the mistakes of believing Armstrong. The 'Cynics' are accused of throwing mud everywhere hoping some sticks. I want to say that there are other 'camps' which the majority of fans probably belong.

I am an optimistic realist when it comes to cycling. As a long-time fan I am realistic about cycling that there will always be cheats and the possibility of cheating, but as an optimist I am also hopeful that there can be a time/era when cycling is on the whole clean. I am desperate that if someone is cheating, no matter how big they are or how much I like them, they are caught and exposed. However, I am equally desperate not to miss the (first?) extraordinary clean performance and in fact to celebrate it.

This is risky. I don't want to be fooled again, but the joy of sport is witnessing extraordinary physical performances. Cycling has got itself stuck as the very thing that should invoke the joy of watching the sport (the extraordinary performance) has become the very thing that spoils the sport for many because of the suspicion it brings. If there is no hope then people should stop putting themselves through it, like a battered wife just walk away. But please don't just lump those who want to trust again in the category of being naïve or a fan-boy.

What I find very intriguing about Froome's recent performances is that he is forcing a polarised position. His performances are either Great or fraudulent; they aren't OK or just good enough. If he is hiding something, with these performances he is doing a really bad job of hiding it. Now I am with David Walsh on this, yes there are things that prevent us from saying 100% he/sky are clean but we are a long way from having evidence (failed cortisone test/bullying/witnesses) that he is doping. All we have is extraordinary performance which as has been stated elsewhere is the point of sport.

One thing the Armstrong saga has shown us is that no matter how much legal or political weight you can throw around the truth will come out eventually. Retrospective testing will pick up any product that can't be tested for now. This I believe allows me as a fan to watch a performance and enjoy it knowing that if it is not clean it will be revealed at some point. So I want to say it is legitimate to believe now without being a fan-boy or naïve, but simply wanting to enjoy this great sport for what it is. It could be that Froome is one of the Greats, and if so what a shame it would be if cycling fans missed that. We have had a lot stolen away from us by the cheats, lets not allow them to steal more than they already have. Here ends the sermon."

Good point, well made.

velo_vicar

Apologies for the lack of return key use and thank you for the editing.

Turfle

My guess is the majority of cycling fans are the same. It would be silly not to have doubts, but when those doubts are based on performance, and are taking away your enjoyment, then maybe that's the time to stop watching.

chrisday

Turfle wrote:

My guess is the majority of cycling fans are the same. It would be silly not to have doubts, but when those doubts are based on performance, and are taking away your enjoyment, then maybe that's the time to stop watching.

I'd tend to agree - I think most people who follow cycling are much the same: it's just that (as is often the case in life) those occupying the extreme ends of the spectrum tend to be among the most vociferous.

Really good post, tho. As well as making good points, I like the fact it attracts us back to the reality that most of us exist somewhere in the 'grey continuum' in the middle. It's those that seek a black/white polarisation that perpetuate the arguments, or at least continue them indefinitely.

I also find the whole psychology of this fascinating. The whole TdF/Froome thing is, I think, largely around "he's the first post-Oprah winner", as many others have stated. Those screaming, or at least smugly posting "you naive fools, he's obviously dirty" etc., I feel, are motivated by a couple of things:

a. The desire to "not get fooled again". Lots of people have had their dreams/faith/whatever trashed over the last few years, and it's a natural reaction to protect yourself from that pain, in much the same way that someone broken by a painful relationship might avoid trying again with someone else.

b. A pre-emptive desire to be able, at some unspecified point in the future, be able to turn around to the "naive" and yell "I BLOODY KNEW IT! I TOLD YOU! YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN" etc. There's something there about wanting to take power/agency back for yourself, tho that's putting me close towards Pseud's Corner, so I'll leave that one

I guess there's also a subset for whom the whole drama/conspiracy stuff is too attractive - it almost doesn't matter what the subject is, it's the sense of being on the inside, in the know, or "smarter than the sheeple" etc. Here, I'm waiting for someone to make the proper effort of a combo conspiracy - "Sky/whoever are doping using secret alien performance technology, provided for them via Murdoch's connections to Bilderberg and the Illuminati"