Depression and Doping

No_Ta_Doctor

ddraver wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

UK Cycling Expert ‏@ukcyclingexpert 1h
I haven't done any scientific research into the effect of beards in the peloton but I've got loads of anecdotes so I'm sure of my facts!!

You could see this as precisely the kind of inhumane snark that FG stands accused of (not directed at TWH). I'm sure the real journalists will get their fair share of the expanding cake.

I think the difference is that UKCylingExpert is a well defined comedy tweeter. There is no real danger of people taking it seriously. However festinagirl/micron/Suze Clemitson is trying to establish herself as a serious writer writing serious articles. That requires that she seperate herself from the snark of the doperati - of which she is a founder member - but as we can even see in the same article, she can't stop herself from snidely accusing a team with no serious evidence against them, of cheating.

She can't have it both ways...

While I applaud Macaloon's noble quest for impartiality, I'm firmly with the critics here.

There are three main accusations levelled at the piece:
1) It lacks any scientific rigour, and this on a very serious topic that desperately needs rigour (depression)
2) That it contains thinly veiled insinuations about Sky (at the least by superimposition - see the paragraph on Riis and "marginal gains")
3) That the author is guilty of hypocrisy, given her previous (and possibly continued by way of point 2 above) snark and snide.

As far as I can see, all three criticisms are entirely justified.

I'm all for second chances, redemption, being open to changing one's mind. But there's a reason I think David Millar is more valuable than e.g. Valverde in the peloton and in his dialogue. If Festinagirl/Suzy wants to be taken seriously she needs to explicitly take a stand against the snark and snide insinuation, and that requires that she comes clean about her role in the past (and cleans up her act in the future). Just as I'd expect target testing of dopers that have been caught in the past I expect scrutiny of snark-merchants when they attempt more serious writing.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

There are three main accusations levelled at the piece:
1) It lacks any scientific rigour, and this on a very serious topic that desperately needs rigour (depression)
2) That it contains thinly veiled insinuations about Sky (at the least by superimposition - see the paragraph on Riis and "marginal gains")
3) That the author is guilty of hypocrisy, given her previous (and possibly continued by way of point 2 above) snark and snide.

As far as I can see, all three criticisms are entirely justified.

My main criticism is a different one - that the piece seeks to draw a direct correlation between doping and depression (with little evidence of such), which, if popularised, may stigmatise suffers in a sport which is probably barely understanding of the afflication in the first place. Would a rider feel able to come forward and address his problems if he felt that doing so would link him to doping in the minds of those that use the flimsiest excuse to do so?

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

There are three main accusations levelled at the piece:
1) It lacks any scientific rigour, and this on a very serious topic that desperately needs rigour (depression)
2) That it contains thinly veiled insinuations about Sky (at the least by superimposition - see the paragraph on Riis and "marginal gains")
3) That the author is guilty of hypocrisy, given her previous (and possibly continued by way of point 2 above) snark and snide.

As far as I can see, all three criticisms are entirely justified.

My main criticism is a different one - that the piece seeks to draw a direct correlation between doping and depression (with little evidence of such), which, if popularised, may stigmatise suffers in a sport which is probably barely understanding of the afflication in the first place. Would a rider feel able to come forward and address his problems if he felt that doing so would link him to doping in the minds of those that use the flimsiest excuse to do so?

Case in point: after Thibaut Pinot pulled out of the Tour last year, it was reported (source: Julien Pinot) that he had became very depressed. So what happens if people start to associate the word 'depressed' with doping? This is the world of trigger words and phrases, of soundbites and snap judgements.

Macaloon

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I applaud Macaloon's noble quest for impartiality, I'm firmly with the critics here.

Tough crowd. Thought I'd quit whining about the negativity and deploy a little rayjay of sunshine

No_Ta_Doctor

Macaloon wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I applaud Macaloon's noble quest for impartiality, I'm firmly with the critics here.

Tough crowd. Thought I'd quit whining about the negativity and deploy a little rayjay of sunshine

rick_chasey

I guess I won't win many friends if I say I enjoyed the article?

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

My main criticism is a different one - that the piece seeks to draw a direct correlation between doping and depression (with little evidence of such), which, if popularised, may stigmatise suffers in a sport which is probably barely understanding of the afflication in the first place. Would a rider feel able to come forward and address his problems if he felt that doing so would link him to doping in the minds of those that use the flimsiest excuse to do so?

Case in point: after Thibaut Pinot pulled out of the Tour last year, it was reported (source: Julien Pinot) that he had became very depressed. So what happens if people start to associate the word 'depressed' with doping? This is the world of trigger words and phrases, of soundbites and snap judgements.

Valid points. I think media are generally very slack with casual causal associations like this.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

There are three main accusations levelled at the piece:
1) It lacks any scientific rigour, and this on a very serious topic that desperately needs rigour (depression)
2) That it contains thinly veiled insinuations about Sky (at the least by superimposition - see the paragraph on Riis and "marginal gains")
3) That the author is guilty of hypocrisy, given her previous (and possibly continued by way of point 2 above) snark and snide.

As far as I can see, all three criticisms are entirely justified.

My main criticism is a different one - that the piece seeks to draw a direct correlation between doping and depression (with little evidence of such), which, if popularised, may stigmatise suffers in a sport which is probably barely understanding of the afflication in the first place. Would a rider feel able to come forward and address his problems if he felt that doing so would link him to doping in the minds of those that use the flimsiest excuse to do so?

I sort of agree with you, though it's a little speculative.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess I won't win many friends if I say I enjoyed the article?

Chasey and FG,
Sitting in a tree,
K
I
S
S
I
N
G.

Crankbrother

G
O
S
S
I
P
I
N
G

Macaloon

Crankbrother wrote:

G
O
S
S
I
P
I
N
G

Wrong thread, mate >>>

rick_chasey

In fairness I read the article and looked who wrote it later.

It's just a comment blog. It was fairly entertaining. Not expecting anything too serious. It's a blog on a news site.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

It was fairly entertaining. Not expecting anything too serious.

If you want to do 'entertaining' or 'not too serious' then write about see-through skinsuits or cycling tattoos, not depression.

mroli

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess I won't win many friends if I say I enjoyed the article?

I enjoyed the article too. Its part of her 100 tales of 100 tours book isn't it? It was an interesting read that can't hope to cover the subject properly in its length, but is anecdotal and covers a subject (cycling rather than depression) that I am interested in. More cycling in my mainstream news providers the better as far as I'm concerned...

Outsider art by Loan

Everyone and their dog has had depression, or believes they have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... e_disorder

See how many names you recognize. And imagine how long a 'complete' list would be.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It was fairly entertaining. Not expecting anything too serious.

If you want to do 'entertaining' or 'not too serious' then write about see-through skinsuits or cycling tattoos, not depression.

I suffer from SAD. Reasonably severely. I don't think the topic is exclusive to mental health professionals due to the nature of it.

You can look at it from a lot of ways. I find it an interesting one. It's not gospel but nor is it intended to be.

frenchfighter

Instead of criticising the author how about you write a blog as long and complete as hers and maybe write a book.

Ive never seen the blog but the first three posts were good reading.

If you want a scientific explanation of depression go and pick up a textbook. You dont read a blog like that for academic material. Her application of depression to doping was good imo, fully makes sense and I have read similar points in many other places.

Is this festina girl on twitter? I dont follow twitter as it is full of shi t, egos and thought less comments but I know she causes a lot of you issues. As far as I am aware though she is not a troll etc.

Will be bookmarking the blog.

frenchfighter

Outsider art by Loan wrote:

Everyone and their dog has had depression, or believes they have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... e_disorder

See how many names you recognize. And imagine how long a 'complete' list would be.

You could go into a gp now, act sad, say worrying things then get signed off from work for weeks. I've heard this many times.

Real depression I have seen in someone close to me and it is completely different.

People are too ready to use the word depression when referring to feeling sad often.

frenchfighter

mroli wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess I won't win many friends if I say I enjoyed the article?

I enjoyed the article too. Its part of her 100 tales of 100 tours book isn't it? It was an interesting read that can't hope to cover the subject properly in its length, but is anecdotal and covers a subject (cycling rather than depression) that I am interested in. More cycling in my mainstream news providers the better as far as I'm concerned...

At least there are two people who make sense here + maca.

I think I will buy that book.

ddraver

Does the blog have to be based in reality, insightful or new, or is length your only concern?

BillyMansell

frenchfighter wrote:

mroli wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess I won't win many friends if I say I enjoyed the article?

I enjoyed the article too. Its part of her 100 tales of 100 tours book isn't it? It was an interesting read that can't hope to cover the subject properly in its length, but is anecdotal and covers a subject (cycling rather than depression) that I am interested in. More cycling in my mainstream news providers the better as far as I'm concerned...

At least there are two people who make sense here.

I think I will buy that book.

You three go and enjoy your lemonparty but the notion that concordance of thought between a few people has anything to do with sense or understanding of the subject is absurd.

ddraver

Frenchie has always had a softspot for festinagirl Billy. It's because if her bile is true then it gives his golden boy an excuse for losing.

frenchfighter

I didnt even know it was her when I was reading the article and blog. No idea what her real name was.

ocdupalais

I'm thinking of researching for a blog title I've come up with - "Twitter and Sh1t Writing: Does One Inevitably Quite Literally Have To Lead To The Other Like a Chicken and Egg Type Scenario? "Very Probably!", as Shakespeare Himself Once Famously Said. Or Does It Really, I Ask?".

I had been thinking of submitting it as an article somewhere but worry that that might involve an editor who might have issue with me shoe-horning a load of unsubstantiated guff and confused half-thoughts about a subject that I'm clearly way out of my depth with, into an agenda that I'm unwilling to relinquish because, now I've thought of it, I haven't really got the intellect to think around. One of my main areas of interest will be to see if anyone who has achieved notoriety through Twitter has ever gone on to write anything of value, or does history tell us that it only works the other way around?
I've got lots of really really good quotes from lots of very famous people from all sorts of situations that I can change the context of willy-nilly to suit, so no worries there. Hopefully, my inaccuracies (I'm totally honest here - errors are inevitable because I accept I'm not perfect; no one is) will p1ss enough real experts off enough to strike up a rapport with people I'd otherwise never get a look in with.

Macaloon

"It's not flailing, it's blagging with style."
- Suzz Lightweight

jerry3571

I didn't know Prozac was on the list of substances in use and also about the old top pro, from years ago, who hung himself. As long as I learn then I'm happy. Comments, on here, about this article, hasn't increased my learning.
(must admit I'm not keen on the posts saying "The article is cr@p because it's cr@p". These responses don't do much for anything) can we have more more counter arguments and facts please?

ddraver

Macaloon wrote:

"It's not flailing, it's blagging with style."
- Suzz Lightweight

Trouble is that when retweeting stuff is so easy, it becomes very easy to "Retweet" more substantial stuff and claim it as your own...

Jerry - (serious question!) can you give us an example please - there are a few various opinions/criticisms posted so far

Jez mon

I didn't especially enjoy the article...I just found it long and meandering, and not particularly engaging. I'm not saying I could do any better though! Honestly, it made me think that if the future of journalism is the loudest voices from twitter getting blogs on national newspapers, then it's a pretty bleak future!

mr_poll

frenchfighter wrote:

Instead of criticising the author how about you write a blog as long and complete as hers and maybe write a book.

Ive never seen the blog but the first three posts were good reading.

If you want a scientific explanation of depression go and pick up a textbook. You dont read a blog like that for academic material. Her application of depression to doping was good imo, fully makes sense and I have read similar points in many other places.

Is this festina girl on twitter? I dont follow twitter as it is full of shi t, egos and thought less comments but I know she causes a lot of you issues. As far as I am aware though she is not a troll etc.

Will be bookmarking the blog.

It's not a blog though is it FF - her 100 days blog is fine where it was and actually on the whole the few days I read weren't too bad (although most was a rehash of other stuff I have read by established journalists) however she obv put a lot of work into it so a hat tip for that.

However the OP posted a link to an article in a respectable broadsheet - a paper that has recently been spending it's time revealing secrets about the NSA and GCHQ and their spying. It might be me but if I want a fluff opinion piece with some thinly veiled comments then I can pick up the Daily Heil or The Scum. Call me old fashioned but I want proper journalism from papers, well researched that is based on fact.

If the Guardian want to sign up Suze/FG to write for them then fair enough, their call, but a cut and shut from her blog on a subject that is highly emotive (and as other posters have pointed out can cause harm) isn't what I expect, especially when there is a lot of scientific fact out there that could actually add to awareness and increase understanding.

No_Ta_Doctor

OCDuPalais wrote:

Some funny sh*t