2013 Off-Season Doping Latrine: Share your incontinence here

Macaloon

Obviously all threads, whatever their original topic, eventually degenerate into pantomime doping farce. (The Horner contract and Millar retirement threads are two recent tragedies.) It's just an Internet Law.

Building on the highly successful LA, and Sky Doping (http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12931600&p=18428856%20turned%20into%20a%20 a belter) containment threads, I'm suggesting that this becomes the destination of choice for those who repeatedly flog the doping horse. After a couple of rounds of cordial back and forth, an invitation to the latrine might save the rest of us wading through the sh1t3.

dish_dash

Excellent! Great move Mac...

thomthom

Can I be the one arguing for not dumping it all in one thread?

Millar, Horner, Alberto, Sky, Bjarne, Basso, Astana, JTL (etc...) -threads WILL turn into a lot of doping talk - this thread or not. And so they probably should.

morstar

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12943973&p=18565442#p18565442

Admittedly yours is named a bit better...

But I was there first.

Pross

ThomThom wrote:

Can I be the one arguing for not dumping it all in one thread?

Millar, Horner, Alberto, Sky, Bjarne, Basso, Astana, JTL (etc...) -threads WILL turn into a lot of doping talk - this thread or not. And so they probably should.

Fair enough but some just can't help themselves and have put in a few 'humorous' comments on the rider of the year thread. I can understand why threads about certain riders descend into that but there are people who bring every thread down and for whom about 80% of their posts involve some reference to doping.

specialgueststar

Brian Cookson: he's used to commuting from Lancashire to Manchester. Now he's got to get to UCI headquarters and 'stay awake and focussed ' for up to 4 hours at a time. He needs to get some results quick.....I'm just saying

RichN95.

I was largely responsible for some of the diverting of the mentioned threads

With the Millar thread you cannot discuss his career and legacy without mentioning doping. It's like talking about Tony Blair and refusing to mention Iraq.

The Horner thread had run its course already. At least until he gets a job. A new avenue of discussion had organically opened up which wasn't specifically Horner relevant but I feel had merit - especially as it related to the use of data with regard to doping and which resulted from Horner's data release. Now if a mod wants to branch that off into new thread then so be it, but it didn't kill a thread - it was already dead.

By and large there is little doping talk on this forum and it's usually pertinent. And one of the strengths of this forum is that it allows for wide ranging discussion with threads often taking interesting turns. If you restrict what people can post, you limit these possibilites. Sometimes the greatest discoveries are made by people looking for something else.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

With the Millar thread you cannot discuss his career and legacy without mentioning doping. It's like talking about Tony Blair and refusing to mention Iraq.

The Horner thread had run its course already. At least until he gets a job. A new avenue of discussion had organically opened up which wasn't specifically Horner relevant but I feel had merit - especially as it related to the use of data with regard to doping and which resulted from Horner's data release. Now if a mod wants to branch that off into new thread then so be it, but it didn't kill a thread - it was already dead.

By and large there is little doping talk on this forum and it's usually pertinent. And one of the strengths of this forum is that it allows for wide ranging discussion with threads often taking interesting turns. If you restrict what people can post, you limit these possibilites. Sometimes the greatest discoveries are made by people looking for something else.

I'm perfectly happy for doping to be discussed in every thread: relevant or not. But it's a complete waste of time wading through endless repeats of "my doper is better than yours" when you're looking for Millar thoughts or the climb times debate (enjoyable as it was), when you want to read about Horner's contract.

Editing to add:
By all means anybody should post any new doping wrinkle as widely as possible. Most people are sensible enough to spot its novelty. And I agree that the self-policing of this forum is a major strength. Just suggesting a few citizens arrests might be in order.

thomthom

But isn't it quite obvious that the discussion turns one way when GT Champion can't get a job? We all know why..
Also, isn't quite obvious that a thread about a controversial - and former doper - turns into a discussion about his.. doping? What else is there to say about Millar? He spoke openly about his past.. I pretty sure that was covered as well.. He's genuinly a very limited topic to talk about (cycling wise) which is why it turns into a doping discussion.

joelsim

Macaloon wrote:

when you want to read about Horner's contract.

He hasn't got a contract, so not much to read

morstar

I think it's a good idea. I like to talk doping as it's a fascinating subject. There is however a massive problem with race threads descending into doping innuendo simply because somebody dared to win.
It's a grey area but I'd agree it's very relevant to the DM thread but the type of debate in the CH contract thread was very off topic. It needn't have gone beyond the mention that teams may have their suspicions.
Conversely, it's a pain when there is pertinent doping discussion to be had and it runs simultaneously on multiple threads. The LA thread centred it all in one place. If you wanted to either discuss or avoid LA doping chat, it was easily done.

thomthom

I still don't get it. How should that Chris Horner thread not turn into anything but a doping conversation?

Macaloon

ThomThom wrote:

But isn't it quite obvious that the discussion turns one way when GT Champion can't get a job? We all know why..
Also, isn't quite obvious that a thread about a controversial - and former doper - turns into a discussion about his.. doping? What else is there to say about Millar? He spoke openly about his past.. I pretty sure that was covered as well.. He's genuinly a very limited topic to talk about (cycling wise) which is why it turns into a doping discussion.

You're making my point. A look at the Millar thread suggests there's shed-loads to say about such a controversial figure than "doper". But it's in danger of being buried under another rehash of Olympic doping "hypocrisy" proving they're all it.

I picked the Millar example deliberately. It's ludicrous to avoid doping and its repercussions. But when there's nothing new to say about it, why can't we say it here?

tailwindhome

I think you had a point with the Spoilers/ Sky thread.

With respect this seems like another way for forum members to try to dictate who can post and where they can post it.

We already have enough of that.

ddraver

The trouble with most of the threads is when you get a blatant troll (looking at you frenchie) who posts something deliberately provocative or when someone posts something obviously wrong (rayjay), it's very hard for people not to correct them. Trouble is trolls and fools tend not to observe threads like this...

The Sky/Spoiler thread should be where Rich is schooling rayjay, but rayjay is only interested in subverting a totally unrelated thread round to Sky...

specialgueststar

ddraver wrote:

The trouble with most of the threads is when you get a blatant troll (looking at you frenchie) who posts somthing deliberatly provocative or when rayjay posts something obviously wrong, it's very hard for people not to correct them. Trouble is trolls and fools tend not to observe threads like this...

have you ever noticed FF can put in long shifts of trolling - more than what would be expected and yet he's never available for trolling passport chacks

Macaloon

TailWindHome wrote:

I think you had a point with the Spoilers/ Sky thread.

With respect this seems like another way for forum members to try to dictate who can post and where they can post it.

We already have enough of that.

Busted :oops: Pesky kids.

FocusZing

Christophe Bassons rode the 1998 and 1999
Tours de France, and was outspokenly anti-
doping. So outspoken, in fact, that a virtual
“shunning”, led by Lance Armstrong, whom he
had publicly criticized, caused him to abandon
the 1999 Tour midway through.

“This list does not surprise me at all,” he told RTL.

“The new generation will not do the same crap, but it
requires that those people who have lived a lie
for so long not be at the heads of teams or are
TV consultants, coaches or others ... (...) I think
it is necessary to clean it."

He added, “For me, some riders were doped in
the Tour in 2013. I am convinced of that.”



http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-r ... ves-report

RichN95.

FocusZing wrote:

Christophe Bassons rode the 1998 and 1999
Tours de France, and was outspokenly anti-
doping. So outspoken, in fact, that a virtual
“shunning”, led by Lance Armstrong, whom he
had publicly criticized, caused him to abandon
the 1999 Tour midway through.

This bit is actually somewhat of a myth. He really wasn't particularly outspoken at the time. He'd he rode for Festina from 96-98 without saying anything to anyone, before being 'outed' as a clean rider in the subsequent Festina enquiry. As a result (now riding for FdJ) got a newspaper diary for the 1999 Tour in which he barely mentioned doping at all - it was just like any other rider's diary. It was only when he said that Armstrong's performances had shocked the peloton that Armstrong and others started being unpleasant towards him that which is what actually caused anyone to take any notice. If they'd ignored him we would probably never have heard of him. (It's a good example of the Streisand Effect* in action)

He's made out to be some crusading whistleblower these days, but he wasn't really. Now Manzano - that was a whistleblower.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Streisand_effect

ddraver

BLASPHEMY! PERSECUTE! KILL! MAIM!

FocusZing

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Christophe Bassons rode the 1998 and 1999
Tours de France, and was outspokenly anti-
doping. So outspoken, in fact, that a virtual
“shunning”, led by Lance Armstrong, whom he
had publicly criticized, caused him to abandon
the 1999 Tour midway through.

This bit is actually somewhat of a myth. He really wasn't particularly outspoken at the time. He'd he rode for Festina from 96-98 without saying anything to anyone, before being 'outed' as a clean rider in the subsequent Festina enquiry. As a result (now riding for FdJ) got a newspaper diary for the 1999 Tour in which he barely mentioned doping at all - it was just like any other rider's diary. It was only when he said that Armstrong's performances had shocked the peloton that Armstrong and others started being unpleasant towards him that which is what actually caused anyone to take any notice. If they'd ignored him we would probably never have heard of him. (It's a good example of the Streisand Effect* in action)

He's made out to be some crusading whistleblower these days, but he wasn't really. Now Manzano - that was a whistleblower.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Streisand_effect

Oh Rich. You'll be getting letters...

FocusZing

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

The trouble with most of the threads is when you get a blatant troll (looking at you frenchie) who posts something deliberately provocative or when someone posts something obviously wrong (rayjay), it's very hard for people not to correct them. Trouble is trolls and fools tend not to observe threads like this...

The Sky/Spoiler thread should be where Rich is schooling rayjay, but rayjay is only interested in subverting a totally unrelated thread round to Sky...

You keep saying I am wrong. Prove it?

ddraver

Rich did a pretty good job thanks.

Macaloon

rayjay wrote:

Prove it?

Babs appears to have a prior engagement, so if you don't mind narrowing your scope a touch, I'll have a bash.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

You keep saying I am wrong. Prove it?

You said that Millar was hypocrite because he had supported lifetime bans from the Olympics, something you initially said you said in relation to reading his book and then said it was something you heard on the radio at some point.
I countered this by showing that he had appealed his Scottish Commonwealth ban in 2009 and applauded LaShawn Merritt's ban being lifted in 2011 - both suggesting that he did not support such a ban. I provided links to back me up.

You were wrong - we all are from time to time.

rayjay

Just got back from the ballet, talk about strong athletes. Amazing.
Now, here we go. I never said he that he said that from his book. I just mentioned that I read his book . Your wrong .
The radio interview was a while back. I cannot remember what station it was. I was in New York at the time just going through some stations. It did sound like the BBC though. If I am wrong I am happy to admit I am wrong. If you can prove it.
Once again I ask you to prove me wrong on any of the posts I made?
Check out the ballet if you get a chance. they are awesome athletes. Im off to Japan for a few days. I will try and reply to your reply if I get a chance, even the haters make me laugh

chow

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

The radio interview was a while back. I cannot remember what station it was. I was in New York at the time just going through some stations. It did sound like the BBC though. If I am wrong I am happy to admit I am wrong. If you can prove it.

Maybe it was this BBC Radio 5 Live interview were he discusses the BOA ban and why he opposes it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/15909761

You're not very good at this, are you?

mfin

You're. I'm. Try to. Ciao.

Macaloon

'Rider 15' vs 'Luigi'

Are there substantive differences between these 'cases'? Specifically: are the identities of the riders known/uncertain to the same degree, and is the magnitude of the alleged offences similar?