An Interesting Read From The Inside of Pro Cycling
- Thread starter House
- Start date
How so? Is it really trolling to produce an open letter from a DS in pro cycling about the way doping is handled? If so then so is a thread about a Rider saying something. The fact is that you did not read it when you posted your response therefore it was trolling and only trolling.karlotta said:
If that was the case then why not post that as your response instead of what you posted? Makes more sense and it certainly wouldn't come off as trolling against particular website (perhaps you were banned from their boards and are still ******). Very odd that it would take me calling you out on not reading it for you to say this.karlotta said:
Since you have read it and believe this then please give a break down of what he says and why you think this. It might make for good discussion...certainly better then calling the website it was written to doping apologists (the catch phrase for people like you when people don't fall in lock step with your closed minded opinions).karlotta said:
Some specifics of what you disagree with would impress people, comments like this make you look like the back end of a horse.karlotta said:
If you don't have anything of value to add to a discussion, click on to the next thread(or forum). Don't take something meant to start a meaningful duscusstion and turn it into a ping-pong match of this ****.
I thought it was a very informative and well thought out letter. It points out MANY flaws in the system...I didn't see any "apologist" type things in there.
...and the fact that it made you look stupid...House said:
....shows you're too eager to hit the return button on your keyboard before carefully reviewing what you have written.
I think you're the guy who sits in the bar writing the 'worlds wrongs' right and telling everyone "just how it is" but never actually leaving your barstool. With the exception when you return to your miserable life as an over the hill part-time cyclist who has a friend of a friend who once knew Lance.
Demands for 100 percent certainty are apologist-speak. Demands that more attention be paid to extenuating circumstances... not defined... again... more smokescreen and apologist-speak. Implied demand for lesser sanctions when atheletes whose positive tests are confirmed will not accept that they've been caught and instead insist on the "I was sabotaged" defense are again, examples of apologist-speak.youngda9 said:
Again, we've all read the same stuff before. It always gets trotted out whenever highly placed athletes test positive.
It's not all apologia.. the part about harsher penalties at the end. Good. But in whose mind must there be "no doubts" about the convictions?
Yours? Mine? WADA's? The accused cyclist who still denies?
Who must have NO DOUBTS?
whiteboytrash, you just keep on proving what a pathetic little troll you are. You are alomst getting as bad as the king psycho Flyer. Of course he didn't feel the need to attack where people are from, so I guess he is better.
Karlotta- two points:
1) After taking about 2 minutes to look at BikeForums it's obvious you never had any intention to attempt to have an intelligent discussion on the open letter. You wrote the same lame BS their as well.
2) Could you be any more closed minded? You are actually coming out against the rights of the riders, which the federations and doping agencies agreed too.
Karlotta- two points:
1) After taking about 2 minutes to look at BikeForums it's obvious you never had any intention to attempt to have an intelligent discussion on the open letter. You wrote the same lame BS their as well.
2) Could you be any more closed minded? You are actually coming out against the rights of the riders, which the federations and doping agencies agreed too.
-100 percent certainty seems like it's in everyone's best interest.karlotta said:
-Having the correct tests and procedures seems like it's in everyone's best interest.
-Hearing from all sides involved seems like it's in everyone's best interest .
-The concept of innocence until proven guilty seems like it's in everyone's best interest.
It doesn't sound reasonable to demand testing labs that don't leak information to their favorite paper, bypassing protocol, every time something comes back. Why is it that those labe continue to be used, when obviously there are problems there
Just because this debate "gets trotted out" when everyone is talking about it, doesn't make it apologia...it's called a debate. Glad you're involved in it, please pick up the stones you threw earlier.
House said:
This article has already been posted on the forum. About two days ago. In its own thread.
That said, it's terrible. I think, for me, this quote sums up much of the article:
Why does cycling attack itself? Why is it that we "jump on the headline bandwagon"? It's almost amazing to me that anyone can be so fatuous in light of the events in the last twelve months... Perhaps it needs to be spelled out again:
- Roberto Heras, winner of the Vuelta, banned for EPO.
- Basso and Gutierrez, first and second in the Giro, implicated in massive doping bust.
- Ullrich, Basso, Mancebo, 2005's second, thrid, and fourth in the Tour, excluded from 2006 start for links to doping.
- Landis, winner of the Tour, tests positive for abnormally large amounts of (possibly synthetic) testoterone.
And those are just the major headlines -- and includes nothing about the piles of circumstantial evidence linking other athletes and well-known cycling doctors to an institutional culture of cheating.
If anything, articles like the one linked above, are, instead of lending credence to the idea of a clean sport, further evidence of the culture of doping. The writer expresses disdain and shock at the idea that there might be a problem in pro-cycling and at the idea that fans and sponsors might have a legitimate need to see aggressive and comprehensive doping control. It's part of an arrogance amongst the teams and riders that they ought to be allowed to do as they please. How dare anyone accuse them of doping? How dare anyone question their methods? How dare anyone prosecute one of their own?
Not all of live inside the professional peloton, much less with the Discovery Team or in Dr. Fuentes waiting room. Those of us on the outside look at the wreckage of our sport and wonder what can be done to stop the abuse. Those on the inside do nothing but whine about how unfair it all is -- and I suppose, if you live inside, where doping is normal and where no one dares to speak out (who wants Lance telling them to shut up or chasing down every attack?), it probably does seem unfair that people get caught. After all, how do you think Pereiro feels right now? He's about to be delcared winner of the Tour de France, though in all likelihood, he doped too and knows that he gets the trophy simply because he didn't get caught.
German television recently said that they want to broadcast sport, not a pharmceutical battle. That sums up my feeling as well. I understand that it is deeply important to some fans to believe that their heroes don't dope. And I understand that they are willing to question every test, denigrate every doping official in their quest to believe they haven't wasted their emotional energy on a cheater. That was, initially, my attitude as well. But, at this point, in the face of this year, it's a deeply naive attitude. And an unfortuante and useless one.
A friend of mine who only casually follows cycling asked me about Landis the other day. She said: you must be furious with him, knowing that I had been hoping he would win. When I said that I wasn't furious and that in fact I believed that he had been doping all along -- like all the top contenders -- she was baffled. She said: "Well I was furious. I was pulling for him. And when I found he cheated, I felt cheated. Why did I wake up early to watch a cheater?"
What my friend said made me think a bit about how I viewed cycling. I think I should feel a bit more cheated by all these liars and dopers in my midst. The last thing I want to read is some whining plea to give cyclists more latitude in doping from Ray Cipollini. What I want to read is an apology from Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, and Floyd Landis.
Why do we attack the sport? Because the sport is corrupt, thoroughly. From top to bottom. From individual athletes to team management. The sport is, as evidenced by Cipollini's article, so corrupt that it can't imagine why people might be upset. We're upset because cycling is treating us like suckers.
