hyper hypocrisy

[Scott]

Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
never doped.

Maybe he was just disappointed that Museeuw didn't keep his mouth shut?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
>there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
>expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
>where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
>never doped.
>

It's not just you. I'm with you..
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Bill C]

On Feb 1, 6:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> >there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> >expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> >where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> >never doped.
>
> It's not just you. I'm with you..
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
a tradition!"
Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
comes back around again.
Bill C

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
> a tradition!"
> Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> comes back around again.
> Bill C

But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.

You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
assumptions-

#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
winning
#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
dope
#3: The public demands a "clean" sport

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

 

[Bill C]

On Feb 1, 6:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
> relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
> endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
> actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
> that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
>
> You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
> Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
> guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
> everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
> assumptions-
>
> #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> winning
> #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> dope
> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


They6 were riding in a whole different world as you point out. They
are between a rock and a hard place when everyone is asking about
doping now. This sort of crosees over from the Iranian discussion.
Jason's point is that they are operating under a whole different set
of reality and it's unfair to judge them by our current standards.
There's a lot to be said for that, especially in this case. They did
what was allowed with a wink and nod in the past, and today that's not
acceptable. Someone needs to be the victim who stands up and says
this. They'll get killed but the sport would be better for it.
I don't like to compare eras, and don't think you can in cycling
because of the drastic changes in training, nutrition, and equipment.
We just need to appreciate it for what happened then, and the racing
that's happening now.
Bill C

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:54:49 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
>> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
>> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
>> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
>> a tradition!"
>> Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
>> comes back around again.
>> Bill C
>
>But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
>relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
>endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
>actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
>that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
>
>You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
>Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
>guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
>everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
>assumptions-
>
>#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
>winning
>#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
>dope
>#3: The public demands a "clean" sport

Excellent point. You're right about those assumptions and you are right to call
them assumptions.

Ron

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:54:49 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
> >> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
> >> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
> >> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
> >> a tradition!"
> >> Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> >> comes back around again.
> >> Bill C
> >
> >But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
> >relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
> >endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
> >actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
> >that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
> >
> >You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
> >Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
> >guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
> >everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
> >assumptions-
> >
> >#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> >winning
> >#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> >dope
> >#3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>
> Excellent point. You're right about those assumptions and you are right to
> call them assumptions.

I'd say that number 3 is biggest assumption. The public only seems to care about
that when someone is caught and it was fairly obvious that they were probably doing
it for a long time (see: Barry Bonds, although he hasn't really been "caught" yet).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

Bill C wrote:
> Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> comes back around again.

Ask Lefevere.

 

[Keith]

On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
>there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
>expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
>where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
>never doped.
>
>Maybe he was just disappointed that Museeuw didn't keep his mouth shut?

Exactly what I was thinking when I read his comments yesterday, where
is the goold old Omerta when you need it right ! At least Museeuw
wasn't dumb enough to get caught like Merckx in 69.

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:34:29 -0800, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:54:49 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
>> >> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
>> >> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
>> >> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
>> >> a tradition!"
>> >> Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
>> >> comes back around again.
>> >> Bill C
>> >
>> >But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
>> >relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
>> >endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
>> >actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
>> >that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
>> >
>> >You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
>> >Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
>> >guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
>> >everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
>> >assumptions-
>> >
>> >#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
>> >winning
>> >#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
>> >dope
>> >#3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>>
>> Excellent point. You're right about those assumptions and you are right to
>> call them assumptions.
>
> I'd say that number 3 is biggest assumption. The public only seems to care about
>that when someone is caught and it was fairly obvious that they were probably doing
>it for a long time (see: Barry Bonds, although he hasn't really been "caught" yet).

My opinion is that consistency and integrity are a more important form of clean
than is being drug free. Being able to read a race result in the Monday morning
paper and know that is the winner is way more important than the details of T/E
ratios.

Barry Bonds was clearly doping more than the other guys and you can tell just by
looking at him. That's his problem. Ozzie Smith went from being described in a
scouting report with "you can knock the bat out of his hands with a well thrown
ball" to being a premier lead off man. Not bad for a guy in his thirties. Nobody
cared because he was just putting on enough muscle to match the talents he was
known to have rather than chasing a record. Yes, that's a really fuzzy line and
I have no clue how a sanctioning organization would turn that into a rule.

Ron

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> never doped.

Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.

 

[Scott]

On Feb 2, 1:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> > there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> > expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> > where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> > never doped.
>
> Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
> race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.

Tom,

There's a big difference between stating that everyone doped and my
comment on the hypocrisy of a known cheater (he WAS caught doping,
unlike many of the accused today) expressing his disgust with those
who dope today.

Scott

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>
,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 1, 6:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> > >there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> > >expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> > >where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> > >never doped.
> >
> > It's not just you. I'm with you..
>
> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
> a tradition!"
> Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> comes back around again.

Better to mix an Old Fashioned than a metaphor.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Fashioned>

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 1, 6:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
> > relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
> > endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
> > actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
> > that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
> >
> > You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
> > Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
> > guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
> > everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
> > assumptions-
> >
> > #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> > winning
> > #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> > dope
> > #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
> >
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> They6 were riding in a whole different world as you point out. They
> are between a rock and a hard place when everyone is asking about
> doping now. This sort of crosees over from the Iranian discussion.
> Jason's point is that they are operating under a whole different set
> of reality and it's unfair to judge them by our current standards.
> There's a lot to be said for that, especially in this case. They did
> what was allowed with a wink and nod in the past, and today that's not
> acceptable.

Depends what you mean by acceptable and who says so. I
think doping today is as acceptable as at any time in
history. I'll go further and say it is acceptable for a
cyclist to dope.


> Someone needs to be the victim who stands up and says
> this. They'll get killed but the sport would be better for it.
> I don't like to compare eras, and don't think you can in cycling
> because of the drastic changes in training, nutrition, and equipment.
> We just need to appreciate it for what happened then, and the racing
> that's happening now.
> Bill C

--
Michael Press

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:34:29 -0800, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I'd say that number 3 is biggest assumption. The public only seems to care about
>that when someone is caught and it was fairly obvious that they were probably doing
>it for a long time (see: Barry Bonds, although he hasn't really been "caught" yet).

I think you are confusing prurient interest with 'care'. When North
Dallas 40 came out, there was a general agreement that it reflected
what was going on in U.S.pro football - and no one cared past the
theater parking lot.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:22:38 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Smart people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
>> comes back around again.
>
>Better to mix an Old Fashioned than a metaphor.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Fashioned>

Make the house out of security glass, mix the Old Fashioned and sit
there and laugh at the idiots throwing rocks. You're the one sitting
comfortably. In the end, just a waste of rocks.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 2, 1:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
>> > there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
>> > expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
>> > where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
>> > never doped.
>>
>> Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
>> race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.
>
> Tom,
>
> There's a big difference between stating that everyone doped and my
> comment on the hypocrisy of a known cheater (he WAS caught doping,
> unlike many of the accused today) expressing his disgust with those
> who dope today.

Merckx has commented on his "positives" many times. It is his claim that he
was warned not to enter so many races or something might happen and then he
showed positive. It might be mentioned that he has always proclaimed his
innocence while you are portraying it as an open and shut case despite the
fact that Lance and Floyd were extremely peculiar cases.

Floyd initial "positive" for t/e ratio was 4.5:1 the second test showed
11:1. The lab themselves say that they're accuracy is plus or minus 30% so
the second test plainly showed that there was contamination in the sample
and by WADA's own rules should have been throw out. So how is it that a half
a year later they're still arguing about this?

As for Lance - maybe it doesn't bother you that his "sample" showed positive
and conveniently there wasn't enough of the sample left to pass to another
lab as a backup test.

Bob Roll, who should know about these things has stated several times that
he is very suspicious of the French managed system.

Or perhaps you know more about it than the insiders?

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 8:39 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 1:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> >> > there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> >> > expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> >> > where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> >> > never doped.
>
> >> Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
> >> race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.
>
> > Tom,
>
> > There's a big difference between stating that everyone doped and my
> > comment on the hypocrisy of a known cheater (he WAS caught doping,
> > unlike many of the accused today) expressing his disgust with those
> > who dope today.
>
> Merckx has commented on his "positives" many times. It is his claim that he
> was warned not to enter so many races or something might happen and then he
> showed positive. It might be mentioned that he has always proclaimed his
> innocence while you are portraying it as an open and shut case despite the
> fact that Lance and Floyd were extremely peculiar cases.

dumbass,

I don't see where scott made any reference to lance or floyd. i think
the "accused" he's talking about above are puerto riders like basso.

 

[Paul Cassel]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>
> #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> winning
> #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> dope
> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>
I'm skeptical that the public demands anything. This seems to be some
sort of manufactured storm which causes controversy and rumors. Those
are the two things the media feed on which causes them to gen up a lot
of noise. Of course, the media aren't going to publish any story where
folks say, "So what?".

I can't think of any sane individual who believes that US pro
footballers don't dope enormously. They also die very early on compared
to the general public - not directly from the doping. However, tomorrow
millions won't care as these guys ram into each other at the Superbowl.

-paul

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>>
> I'm skeptical that the public demands anything. This seems to be some sort
> of manufactured storm which causes controversy and rumors.

As I said, it was an ASSUMPTION that the public demands a clean sport. I
don't believe that assumption to be correct. The public demands a spectacle,
and doping revelations, to some extent, add to that spectacle.

I have yet to see evidence that doping scandals have ruined the commercial
aspect of cycling.

Would I prefer that the sport was "clean" and the best athlete, without help
from doctors and drugs, always won? Sure. Why not. But it doesn't keep me
from enjoying the sport.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Paul Cassel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>
>> #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances
>> of winning
>> #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they
>> don't dope
>> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>>
> I'm skeptical that the public demands anything. This seems to be some sort
> of manufactured storm which causes controversy and rumors. Those are the
> two things the media feed on which causes them to gen up a lot of noise.
> Of course, the media aren't going to publish any story where folks say,
> "So what?".
>
> I can't think of any sane individual who believes that US pro footballers
> don't dope enormously. They also die very early on compared to the general
> public - not directly from the doping. However, tomorrow millions won't
> care as these guys ram into each other at the Superbowl.
>
> -paul