This forum needs a policy...
- Thread starter Bro Deal
- Start date
That's absurd. Maybe the dumbest CF post ever.Bro Deal said:...where racing threads--assuming one if ever posted--cannot have doping stuff posted to them.
Only fantasy racing threads can be peptide hormone, female fertility, asthma med, cow blood, or amphetamine free.
Actual pro racing threads involve fixing, stages bought or sold, doping, lying and cheating.
I vote NO! Immature posters can certainly start up a 'theorical racing area' and gamble on it based upon meaningless odds.
Bro Deal can be their bookie.
Bro Deal said:...where racing threads--assuming one if ever posted
Could not agree more! With the TdF coming up, lets confine chat about racing to just that. Try putting "no doping chat" or something to that effect in the thread subject.
Andrew76 said:
I agree but doesn't help when our good friends the riders keep getting caught with needles in their arms.....
Impossible when the top riders are doping. Take the Dauphine for example. Many observers suspected that much of the way certain riders took each stage was determined not only by training schedules but also doping schedules. The people on this forum aren't people who are fans of doping, they are cycling fans who now know/suspect so much about doping they can't just switch those suspicions and that knowledge off and think, ooh, look at the fast cyclists in their bright lycra suits. Why don;t we have one forum for cycling fans who can switch off their brains and sit and watch like naive morons and one for those of us who have an awareness of what is behind these 'glorious' victories?House said:
It's not being naive; it's just that not every single thread needs to have doping stuff posted to it, especially Doctor.House's off topic, stream of consciousness **** that is barey intelligible. It's not too difficult to have a thread that discusses the day's racing results and a completely different thread that speculates about who is on what.Rolfrae said:
I'd go further and say that hot button issues like Armstrong never need to be mentioned in racing thread's either.
Sorry but this is complete and utter ****. One can know what is going on in sports (of any kind) and still be able to discuss what occurred in the race, on the field, court, ice, etc. without the discussion devolving into the typical doping conversations on this forum. Interestingly in the "road racing" part of this forum (where you get away from the obsessives) there is plenty of good talk about the actual racing without all of the BS doping arguments. Many other forums also achieve this.Rolfrae said:
So, what do we do if (when) one of the favorites fails a doping control DURING the race?House said:
Can we talk about his riding, but not the doping control?
Can we talk about his specific Tour related doping problem, but not doping "in general"?
Do we just stop talking about him at all?
Bro, you have inadvertently defined the paradox of cycling. On this thread you implore us to stop talking about doping on racing threads but on the thread about Jaksche's doping revelations you describe it as 'good and interesting stuff'.
Regrettable as it is, cycling is inextricably bound up in the tentacles of the doping curse but, as you acknowledge, its ramifications are indeed interesting. They most definitely cannot be put to one side when discussing racing as if they are only of tangential or academic importance.
Doping is actually the principal and overbearing characteristic of all recent racing. It largely determines who wins all the Grand Tours and indeed who is even available for races. Can we possibly discuss a relatively ordinary race like the Dauphine without considering which 'competitors' were at which cycle in their preparation. Can we possibly talk about the meteoric rise of Andy Schleck without wondering. Can we ever view anything we see in isolation.
Well I suppose we could if we stuck our heads in the ground and our arses in the air, but that would mean that we are stupid. Just like the UCI and all the other criminals that have defrauded us of this magnificent sport.
Regrettable as it is, cycling is inextricably bound up in the tentacles of the doping curse but, as you acknowledge, its ramifications are indeed interesting. They most definitely cannot be put to one side when discussing racing as if they are only of tangential or academic importance.
Doping is actually the principal and overbearing characteristic of all recent racing. It largely determines who wins all the Grand Tours and indeed who is even available for races. Can we possibly discuss a relatively ordinary race like the Dauphine without considering which 'competitors' were at which cycle in their preparation. Can we possibly talk about the meteoric rise of Andy Schleck without wondering. Can we ever view anything we see in isolation.
Well I suppose we could if we stuck our heads in the ground and our arses in the air, but that would mean that we are stupid. Just like the UCI and all the other criminals that have defrauded us of this magnificent sport.
It's not a paradox at all. Most other cycling sites have a separate doping forum apart from their racing forum. I think that given the reality of the doping situation that this is rather pointless and often descends into the absurd. For example, roadbikereview just moved a thread about Astana possibly being excluded from the Tour from their racing forum to the doping forum. It's ridiculous that you cannot discuss the the very real possibility that the odds on favorite to win may not be allowed to race.Gregers said:
But that does not mean that every single thread needs to be filled with info about doping, especially when the doping talk is irrelevant to the purpose of the thread. If the same **** is going to be posted in every thread then we might as well do away with threads altogether.
Here's the typical contribution by Doctor.House:
What does this add to any thread? It's his typical bizarre rambling with so little point that it cannot even be responded to. I don't even think the good doctor is capable of writing a coherent sentence. With the TdF coming up, do we really need this sort of thing posted to every thread?Doctor.House said:
I agree. I think we are all racing fans at heart even if that frequently means we know way too much about pharmacopia.
One question. If Piti wins a stage do I have to call him Valverde in the racing thread?
One question. If Piti wins a stage do I have to call him Valverde in the racing thread?
Bro Deal said:
I'm all for snarky comments.Frigo's Luggage said:
Certainly the farce that is the dailypeloton.com is not a model to be followed. The mod there goes ballistic if someone even cracks a joke taht alludes to doping. And if you mention Armstrong in relation to doping, fugettaboutit. The mod using a pic of Armstrong as his avatar is a rather big clue about the balance you get there.
Hey Bro Deal. Why don't you just open up your own blogsite? You seem quite miserable and frustrated here. Quit complaining.Bro Deal said:I'm all for snarky comments.
Perhaps one of two of your friends will join you and you can read and write whatever 'you decide' the posts ought to read?
It is obvious that you lust after absolute editing and deletion authority.
Don't have a heart attack--like Nike Lance's NY Marathon pacer did today. Alberto Salazar, age 48 collapsed at the Nike Campus (of all places) and needed a stent installed into a blocked artery.
This is harassment and foul language.Bro Deal said:
We knew this about you.
Your mama would be ashamed of you!
Only a hypocrite denys doping as root of top level commercial sporting performance---and live in a parallel universe, as all hypocrites must do.Bro Deal said:
Similar threads
