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.
**** you, troll.Doctor.House said: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.
Andrew76 said: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.
How hard is it to stick to racing in a thread and start a new thread to discuss doping?whiteboytrash 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:How hard is it to stick to racing in a thread and start a new thread to discuss doping?
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: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?
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: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?
So, what do we do if (when) one of the favorites fails a doping control DURING the race?House said: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......
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:Bro, you have inadvertently defined the paradox of cycling.
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:No worries CH. We must still clean our cycling uniforms.
But---for money laudering, a Swiss, Grand Cayman, British Virgin Isles (BVI), Antilles Netherlands account and a decent script will EXEMPT you from any taxation from any country who dares tax your cash flows.
Money laudering and drug cheating are very much analogous.
Both are illegal everywhere-----yet ubiquitous everywhere as well.
Greed and hypocrisy is what makes our world go round in a civilized manner.
What is most pathetic is when people deny that hypocrisy mask.
Bro Deal 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.
I'd go further and say that hot button issues like Armstrong never need to be mentioned in racing thread's either.
I'm all for snarky comments. 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.Frigo's Luggage said:I
One question. If Piti wins a stage do I have to call him Valverde in the racing thread?
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. 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.
This is harassment and foul language.Bro Deal said:**** you, troll.
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: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.
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?
Start a thread discussing it instead of turning the race discussion into a doping discussion...which we all know will become a pissing match on this forum. Is that really a hard concept to master?Durangodave said:So, what do we do if (when) one of the favorites fails a doping control DURING the race?
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?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.