Bobke sees the light. Hallelujah!

[Crankyfeet]

Public Forum Message

Please keep inane conversations in the appropriate inane thread please.

 

[VrT]

Aren't the problems at Daily Peleton Forums because it is primarily a pro-cycling news site? Don't they need (or think they need) to keep a low profile and passive attitude to doping, to enable them to get interviews from cyclists and DS's, and owners, and organizers? Or am I off the mark?

Or is it just that Mr. Vaughn believes that doping is a negative issue full of unsubstantiated rumor and lies, that is killing cycling, and should only be discussed based on fact, not speculation. Or is he just worried about Lance's reputation being tarnished?

VrT - can you please respond on these points and whether there is any validity to them?

No, not at all. First of all I don't see a problem. A fact and a rumor, assumption, extrapolation are completely different animals. Opinion is another thing also.
Stating a rumor as a fact is simply asserts an unconfirmed datum as being true. An opinion based on information one has viewed, all of us know that an opinion is just one's viewpoints on something. Anyone can have any opinion they want... but opinions are not a statement of fact or truth.
What we expect is that someone differentiates a rumor or opinion from fact. A mans good name is built over a lifetime and can be easily ruined by one slanderous rumor.
Out of respect for any man or womans good name we expect that any statement can be qualified by what it is, but posting a rumor as fact often only continues a rumor that is completely false or without merit.
Some think repeating a rumor or opinion a thousand times often makes it true or gives it the stature of truth. It doesn't. "The problem" if there is one, is that some may not learn to post something labeling it for what it is: "It is my opinion that..." Joe Persnickity doped. Which is quite different upon hearing a rumor, "Joe Persnickity is a doper and so is the whole team."
Official findings or confessions are what they are.
The cycling and other media is filled with all kinds of snarling rumors reported as truth... I think it is irresponsible and has harmed the sport. I'm not saying there is doping in the peloton, there is and its time it ended. And the endless rumors contribute nothing to a solution. (but it sell papers and page views)
The whole specter of doping in Cycling (and sports) is a huge problem but I think more could be gained by seeking a solution than beating our chests and crying that the sport is dying. It isn't, and won't it has survived two world wars and more drug scandals.

 

[VrT]

I can vouch for Vaughn, we are mates.
But he is deluded with his belief a clean rider can beat a doped rider.
The thing that it is killing cycling, is no one wants to face up to the truth. The truth is not "cycling eating its own" by media hysteria.
No.
It is cyclists doping, and the media not calling it for what it is. Dope wins races. Doped riders win. Gilbert et al, do not win.

Hey Up Thunder,
The stronger rider will always win. Doping is a problem, on any given day a clean rider can beat doped riders, the reverse may be equally true. But a doped rider of lower talent and less ability to read the race can be beat. Likewise a talented rider gains an edge with dope; but this doesn't mean he will win.
There is a lot to consider when one predicts a race winner, and the use of dope is not the end all be all. The course, weather, team and rider tactics, riders form, intelligence and stupidity, desire, ability to suffer pain, heart and the riders given strengths. Doping can't overcome all of these factors.
The media Hysteria and tabloid style of reporting only destroys the sport as it has ruined the reputations of many in the past.
Doping is a problem that will take a better and fairer system, improved tests and testing, more tests, medical passports and a change of the moral and ethtical standards the riders and teams operate on to drive it out of cycling.
My only point here is we should look past the hysteria and act in good faith to help make a change. The hysteria of "Killer Weed" movies never kept a juvenile from trying pot; but it probably helped increase interest in it.
Then again this is only my opinion.

 

[bambi]

No, not at all. First of all I don't see a problem. A fact and a rumor, assumption, extrapolation are completely different animals. Opinion is another thing also.
Stating a rumor as a fact is simply asserts an unconfirmed datum as being true. An opinion based on information one has viewed, all of us know that an opinion is just one's viewpoints on something. Anyone can have any opinion they want... but opinions are not a statement of fact or truth.
What we expect is that someone differentiates a rumor or opinion from fact. A mans good name is built over a lifetime and can be easily ruined by one slanderous rumor.
Out of respect for any man or womans good name we expect that any statement can be qualified by what it is, but posting a rumor as fact often only continues a rumor that is completely false or without merit.
Some think repeating a rumor or opinion a thousand times often makes it true or gives it the stature of truth. It doesn't. "The problem" if there is one, is that some may not learn to post something labeling it for what it is: "It is my opinion that..." Joe Persnickity doped. Which is quite different upon hearing a rumor, "Joe Persnickity is a doper and so is the whole team."
Official findings or confessions are what they are.
The cycling and other media is filled with all kinds of snarling rumors reported as truth... I think it is irresponsible and has harmed the sport. I'm not saying there is doping in the peloton, there is and its time it ended. And the endless rumors contribute nothing to a solution. (but it sell papers and page views)
The whole specter of doping in Cycling (and sports) is a huge problem but I think more could be gained by seeking a solution than beating our chests and crying that the sport is dying. It isn't, and won't it has survived two world wars and more drug scandals.

Wise mans words! See ya at DPF!

 

[Crankyfeet]

No, not at all. First of all I don't see a problem. A fact and a rumor, assumption, extrapolation are completely different animals. Opinion is another thing also.
Stating a rumor as a fact is simply asserts an unconfirmed datum as being true. An opinion based on information one has viewed, all of us know that an opinion is just one's viewpoints on something. Anyone can have any opinion they want... but opinions are not a statement of fact or truth.
What we expect is that someone differentiates a rumor or opinion from fact. A mans good name is built over a lifetime and can be easily ruined by one slanderous rumor.
Out of respect for any man or womans good name we expect that any statement can be qualified by what it is, but posting a rumor as fact often only continues a rumor that is completely false or without merit.
Some think repeating a rumor or opinion a thousand times often makes it true or gives it the stature of truth. It doesn't. "The problem" if there is one, is that some may not learn to post something labeling it for what it is: "It is my opinion that..." Joe Persnickity doped. Which is quite different upon hearing a rumor, "Joe Persnickity is a doper and so is the whole team."
Official findings or confessions are what they are.
The cycling and other media is filled with all kinds of snarling rumors reported as truth... I think it is irresponsible and has harmed the sport. I'm not saying there is doping in the peloton, there is and its time it ended. And the endless rumors contribute nothing to a solution. (but it sell papers and page views)
The whole specter of doping in Cycling (and sports) is a huge problem but I think more could be gained by seeking a solution than beating our chests and crying that the sport is dying. It isn't, and won't it has survived two world wars and more drug scandals.

I appreciate your point about people making wild accusations and stating them as if they're facts. But these forums are not journalistic publications. They are just people sitting in a big "living room" giving their opinions based on their own appraisal of cumulative circumstantial evidence. And if someone has a wild opinion, then others have the ability to post their disagreement. This is the basis of free speech. Now if someone on a forum was deceitfully posting as a reliable source or making up evidence, then that could be considered a lack of integrity, but certainly nothing litigious. This is a free public forum afterall, when all is said and done.

OK, here's an example of an unsubstantiated rumor. There is an unqualified rumor going around that Vaughn Trevi is a Scientologist, and that possibly some of his DPF cronies are as well. Is there any truth to this rumor VrT? I certainly am not willing to believe anything I hear about someone that is without any evidence, unless it can be qualified by the person themselves.

 

[VrT]

I think I am about to be banned over there because I took offense over their editing of vulgarities. I noticed that my post was automatically modified to change ******** to bull----. Then somebody told me that they use rooster for the word ****. I assumed this is a way for people to get around the computer censorship. However, the computer actually substitutes rooster for ****. I can't believe they put up with this.

I know that profanity is a shortcut for people that don't really know better words to use. Sometimes I take that shortcut when I shouldn't. But, this is ridiculous. We are adults. We should be able to say "fark" whenever we want.

This is what I posted as censored (I wonder if it will be deleted):

"Is "roostered" a synonym for "kcoc" spelled backward? That is just stupid. Who talks like this? Who gets offended by rooster? If everybody knows that "roosetered" is supposed to mean the same as "rooster", doesn't the term "roostered" become just as offensive as the term "rooster"? Is somebody trying to keep me from being offended by a reference to c*o*c*k? Does putting an asterisk between the letters somehow make the idea or the word less offensive and more acceptable? Are we not adults and is this not a forum for public discourse and expression. Don't adults sometimes use the work rooster in their communications...as in **** Pound is a rooster? Does **** Pund get censored because a **** is a rooster and vice versa. This is so confusing. Isn't a **** or a rooster or a rooster is simply referring to a part of the human anatomy possessed by half of the worlds population? It is simply a slang term for a penis. Come on here. This is ridiculous. A penis is known as a ****, a rooster, now a rooster, a ****, a unit, a wee-wee, a doodle. I can't say **** here? I am not allowed to mention a doodle even if I am referring simply to a drawing on a piece of paper?

This sucks. Sh-it. Can I say sucks? I mean it has negative conotations in that a rooster is sometimes sucked. I need somebody to protect me from exposure to all of these thoughts. By the way, my rooster is rumored to be 8.5 inches long. I don't know what that is in metric.

McLovin
Worse yet, they are changing what I say to suit their sensibilities. they changed the word c-o-c-k to rooster a few times. That is intellectually reprehensible. Stand up for your rights and fight this bull####."
Please excuse the typos.

The program has an obscenity filter. We have young riders who read and contribute to the forums. I'm sure they can get all the obscenities at school or on the street. ;-) I'm equally sure that anyone can learn enough words to express himself without using obscenity or insulting others.
The term "Rooster" or "Roostered" has its own definition on the forums. You will have to search it to find the definition.
Then again the whole goal of that forum is to have a 'civil' discussion about cycling. This can be accomplished with out insults or obscenity.
Currently icons are reserved for moderators this will be changed when we move to another larger server.
Cheers.
VrT

 

[phuckOff]

Hey Up Thunder,
The stronger rider will always win. Doping is a problem, on any given day a clean rider can beat doped riders, the reverse may be equally true. But a doped rider of lower talent and less ability to read the race can be beat. Likewise a talented rider gains an edge with dope; but this doesn't mean he will win.
There is a lot to consider when one predicts a race winner, and the use of dope is not the end all be all. The course, weather, team and rider tactics, riders form, intelligence and stupidity, desire, ability to suffer pain, heart and the riders given strengths. Doping can't overcome all of these factors.
The media Hysteria and tabloid style of reporting only destroys the sport as it has ruined the reputations of many in the past.
Doping is a problem that will take a better and fairer system, improved tests and testing, more tests, medical passports and a change of the moral and ethtical standards the riders and teams operate on to drive it out of cycling.
My only point here is we should look past the hysteria and act in good faith to help make a change. The hysteria of "Killer Weed" movies never kept a juvenile from trying pot; but it probably helped increase interest in it.
Then again this is only my opinion.

Hell yeah, man. Couldn't have said it better myself! So all you doping fixated freaks go on over to DP and see how it's done. Find a place were civil discourse rules the rooster you bunch of ****ing apes.

 

[helmutRoole2]

... Stating a rumor as a fact is simply asserts an unconfirmed datum as being true.

Dude, pull the broomstick out already. You're not back at DP forums. Loosen up.

And your assertion that clean riders can beat dope riders? Well, stating a rumor as a fact is simply asserts an unconfirmed datum as being true.

And please, take phuckOff with you when you leave.

 

[phuckOff]

Dude, pull the broomstick out already. You're not back at DP forums. Loosen up.

And your assertion that clean riders can beat dope riders? Well, stating a rumor as a fact is simply asserts an unconfirmed datum as being true.

And please, take phuckOff with you when you leave.

Why don't you go back to DP forums, Hell Mutt the butt pirate.

 

[helmutRoole2]

Why don't you go back to DP forums, Hell Mutt the butt pirate.

I did: http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=6743

And by the way, why don't you practice some of that civility here at cyclingforums, you ****ing fruitcake.

 

[phuckOff]

Why don't you go back to DP forums, Hell Mutt the butt pirate.

Because I don't have to here. Here you have an un-moderated three-ring circus.

 

[helmutRoole2]

Because I don't have to here. Here you have an un-moderated three-ring circus.

But we enjoy it that way. We like coming here and meeting up with our forum homies. You know (well probably you don't since we're talking about friends), this forum is like when I was a kid running with my little posse. Sure, one or two kids in the posse were stupid, one was even a full blown dyke, but there was no judgments. If someone in our crew got into a fight, we backed them up. If someone was against one of us they were against all of us. That's the way it is here. Look around here, you ****ing tool. People are forming real friendships. Some, recently, are even acting like they might be falling in love.

Look, "little posse" friendships can't form over at DP because if you try to be yourself and write the way you think then they come down on you with, "Sorry, but we have rules regarding language and the expression of thoughts here."

Hey man, take those goddamn rules and jam them up your mother ****ing ass.

Try to say that over at DP forums.

 

[Crankyfeet]

So I again repeat the question VrT : Is there any truth to the rumor that you are a Scientologist? I understand that this could be a baseless rumor, and I for one don't spread baseless rumors, but is this rumor true? You have identified yourself as Vaughn, and have spoken on his behalf, so I assume you are Vaughn Trevi, the Daily Peloton site owner.

I have nothing against people's beliefs. So whether you are or you aren't a Scientologist doesn't really matter about you as a person IMHO. It may however help to explain your forum's attitude towards drugs though. But it is all dependant on the fact of whether you are a Scientologist or not, which I have not been able to establish.

Awaiting your confirmation or denial.

 

[Drongo]

Hey Up Thunder,
The stronger rider will always win. Doping is a problem, on any given day a clean rider can beat doped riders, the reverse may be equally true. But a doped rider of lower talent and less ability to read the race can be beat. Likewise a talented rider gains an edge with dope; but this doesn't mean he will win.
There is a lot to consider when one predicts a race winner, and the use of dope is not the end all be all. The course, weather, team and rider tactics, riders form, intelligence and stupidity, desire, ability to suffer pain, heart and the riders given strengths. Doping can't overcome all of these factors.
The media Hysteria and tabloid style of reporting only destroys the sport as it has ruined the reputations of many in the past.
Doping is a problem that will take a better and fairer system, improved tests and testing, more tests, medical passports and a change of the moral and ethtical standards the riders and teams operate on to drive it out of cycling.
My only point here is we should look past the hysteria and act in good faith to help make a change. The hysteria of "Killer Weed" movies never kept a juvenile from trying pot; but it probably helped increase interest in it.
Then again this is only my opinion.

VrT,

I respect your motives and principles and have faithfully abided by them while posting at dpf. The problem, though, is that considering racing without discussing likely or probable doping at the same time is an act of wilful blindness. More than that, a failure to discuss doping distorts the analysis of the races themselves. That is: it is not possible to separate doping and cycling any more. Any sensible analysis of the cycling itself must take into account the likely effect of doping. That is not hysteria.

By way of example, T-Mobile's mass-illness at the 2004 Vuelta. Or better yet, stage 8 of the 2005 Tour de France into Gérardmer: you know--the one where Armstrong was isolated on the first mountain stage of the Tour. It didn't remotely look like happening again that Tour, of course, as the blue train did its usual.

Bruyneel's explanation the day after what CN described as a 'lapse of concentration'? "We're trying to find different reasons, but I don't know; maybe we spent too much energy riding in the front or riding for position in the first week, or over-confident, I don't know," said Bruyneel.

"I don't think there's any need to panic, start to shout or be really angry. I know all of the guys wanted to be there - nobody was behind on purpose - and they were very disappointed."

It defies common sense to disregard the reason for that performance, yet no-one at the time addressed it, and if you suggest it now in some quarters there will still be hell to pay.

The problem with disregarding rumours is that the rumours usually turn out to be true. Manzano was pilloried, d'Hont also, but they were right about everything, it seems.

There are some things that cannot be said and others that can at dpf, regardless of the 'In my opinion' caveat, because of the tsunami of vitriol (and occasional moderation) that comes your way when you do. The doping forums have this problem, the Floyd forum specialises in it. The fact that the ridiculous posts made by CF members at dpf were taken seriously for a time is also indicative. I know you can't change the debate or the views of people that post there, but do understand that it stifles sensible discussion about cycling: who can be bothered positing a view if it means limbering up for trench warfare every time?

In short, I understand your reasons and don't expect dpf policy to change. Please also understand some of the consequences of that policy.

Cheers,
Drongo

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

I have a personal bone to pick with FlockofBros. You can attack Floyd, Lance, GW, Bob Dole . . . . but McDonald's? You had to go after McDonald's? That takes Anti-Americanism way too far buddy. The QP is by far the best burger on earth!

I have to jump in here. Has anybody tried Five Guys burgers? It is a small chain that makes hamburgers, fries and hotdogs. Nothing else. The burgers are incredible. They give it to you in a greasy brown paper bag. I swear I've been dropped several times because I've eaten too many of these things.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I have to jump in here. Has anybody tried Five Guys burgers? It is a small chain that makes hamburgers, fries and hotdogs. Nothing else. The burgers are incredible. They give it to you in a greasy brown paper bag. I swear I've been dropped several times because I've eaten too many of these things.

How long 'til Het Volk?

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

The program has an obscenity filter. We have young riders who read and contribute to the forums. I'm sure they can get all the obscenities at school or on the street. ;-) I'm equally sure that anyone can learn enough words to express himself without using obscenity or insulting others.
The term "Rooster" or "Roostered" has its own definition on the forums. You will have to search it to find the definition.
Then again the whole goal of that forum is to have a 'civil' discussion about cycling. This can be accomplished with out insults or obscenity.
Currently icons are reserved for moderators this will be changed when we move to another larger server.
Cheers.
VrT

I can appreciate your policy although I disagree with it.

I just have one question. Why was my original post deleted even after the filter changed it to bull----? I mean, I made legitimate points in the post and unfortunetly used objectionable language in a couple of places. The problem with the foul language was automatically corrected. So, I can only assume that my post was deleted because of the ideas contained in it as opposed to the words used. Do your moderators delete posts that are objectionable to their point of view? If so, that is not much of a forum, is it?

 

[thoughtforfood]

Hell yeah, man. Couldn't have said it better myself! So all you doping fixated freaks go on over to DP and see how it's done. Find a place were civil discourse rules the rooster you bunch of ****ing apes.

Why not read this instead of spreading stupidity that was felched from a bull.
http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
Ouch, that hurts.

 

[thoughtforfood]

but opinions are not a statement of fact or truth

Actually, they are to the individual making the statement, in most cases. When the evidence necessary to satisfy the burden of proof of a given individual has been reached, they will say or write that which they believe to be "truth." It may not be truth to you, but it is to them. Opinions are statements of fact or truth by an individual. We can discuss the idea of universal truth if you wish, but I assure you that there are problems that plague either position you take on that subject. We can also discuss the truth inherent in any given act; but I can also assure you that, while it may appear to be a simple recitation of events, there are many variables that can come into play that will render even that merely conjecture even to those involved. Human beings are complicated in their beliefs, opinions, and view of events in which they take part, and that holds even more true in terms of events in which they did not.

Hey Up Thunder,
The stronger rider will always win. Doping is a problem, on any given day a clean rider can beat doped riders, the reverse may be equally true. But a doped rider of lower talent and less ability to read the race can be beat. Likewise a talented rider gains an edge with dope; but this doesn't mean he will win.
There is a lot to consider when one predicts a race winner, and the use of dope is not the end all be all. The course, weather, team and rider tactics, riders form, intelligence and stupidity, desire, ability to suffer pain, heart and the riders given strengths. Doping can't overcome all of these factors.
The media Hysteria and tabloid style of reporting only destroys the sport as it has ruined the reputations of many in the past.
Doping is a problem that will take a better and fairer system, improved tests and testing, more tests, medical passports and a change of the moral and ethtical standards the riders and teams operate on to drive it out of cycling.
My only point here is we should look past the hysteria and act in good faith to help make a change. The hysteria of "Killer Weed" movies never kept a juvenile from trying pot; but it probably helped increase interest in it.
Then again this is only my opinion.

I wont need long with this one:
Exhibit A:
2005 Tour de france top 10
1. Lance Armstrong (USA) DSC - 3,608.0km in 86h15’02" (41.654km/h)
2. Ivan Basso (Italy) CSC - at 4’40"
3. Jan Ullrich (Germany) TMO - at 6’21"
4. Francisco Mancebo (Spain) IBA - at 9’59"
5. Alexandre Vinokourov (Kazakstahn) TMO at 11’01"
6. Levi Leipheimer (USA) GST - at 11’21"
7. Mickael Rasmussen (Denmark) RAB - at 11’33"
8. Cadel Evans (Australia) DVL - at 11’55"
9. Floyd Landis (USA) PHO - at 12’44"
10. Oscar Pereiro Sio (Spain) PHO - 16’14"

In Bold: riders who have been implicated, tested positive, or found guilty of doping violations using physical evidence. Lance tested positive btw.

Exhibit B:
http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
Interesting article, and it is centered on the performance enhancements of EPO almost exclusively. We all know that there are many other drugs in play, and I can provide more articles should you wish to read them.

I will close by saying that, while your truth may be what you state above, mine is different. Cheers!

 

[C'dale Girl]

Opinions are statements of fact or truth by an individual.

Well, I have to disagree here. That's pretty far reaching really. If you are saying that one's perception of truth and facts is defined and molded by their personal perceptions, experiences and traits, then yes, I agree with you there. However, there certainly is a big difference between fact and opinion by definition.