The Sidebar Thread

[sniper]

so tell me why did Jacques provide that summary?
if not to draw and/or discuss the podcast on the basis of that summary, then what was the use of that summary?

As I said, based on Jacques' summary and on what I've heard on twitter, I think the assumption was fair.
And it was an assumption with an added caveat. I asked people to confirm or correct my assumption.
I asked expicitly if it's a fair assumption. People could have said "no it isnt", but noone did.
I can't be more cautious/fairer than that.

Negative? Yes. Do I have to be positive about him?

This post was harmless, but I'll grant you that I could have stated things more clearly. That said, I'm not making a living out of posting here, and so in my case there's always going to be a trade off between efficiency/having fun on the one hand, and the accuracy of my posts on the other.
Guys/girls like Merckx Index, Libertine they post less, but take more time to carefully craft an argument. I obviously have huge respect for that. But I'm a different type.

 

[King Boonen]

Well Jacques summary even tells you which bits to listen too, which makes it even easier to hear the podcast first hand. I find it crazy to suggest that you would want to discuss a freely available podcast without listening to the relevant parts.

No, you do not have to be positive, I would have the same problem if you were and hadn't listened to the podcast.

Nothing in post indicated any other sources were considered, nothing else was even mentioned. In fact, you didn't even mention a general impression. If you had said, my general impression from reading his twitter, interviews etc. then that would have been fine, I would have had no problem.

I can't be more cautious/fairer than that.

Yes you can, you can listen to what you are drawing assumptions about or not mention it.

Guys/girls like Merckx Index, Libertine they post less, but take more time to carefully craft an argument.

I'm not suggesting everyone should go to the lengths these guys do. I merely suggesting that if you are going to draw negative assumptions about someone you should at least do them the curtesy of listening to what they say or state other reasons for the assumption.

 

[sniper]

Re:

@kingboonen.
appreciate the feedback and generally agree with what you're saying and with what you're advocating for. I just don't think it all applies in this particular case (though some of it may).

For instance, when you say

If you had said, my general impression from reading his twitter, interviews etc. then that would have been fine, I would have had no problem.

I can only assume you hadn't been closely following the thread. If you had, you would have seen that I had been posting from Swart's twitter feed on several occasions, in the very same context (i.e. relating to whether or not Swart is showing bias). So within the context of the thread and my active involvement in it, and with Jacques' summary there, I think my assumption on Swart wasn't far fetched or unfair, nor was it very negative**. I added the caveat and asked the question. I didn't state anything as fact. I gave plenty of room to others to respond and to tell me: "dude, listen to the podcast, you'll change your mind". I can't help it if noone did.

So part of this will remain a matter of perspective, opinion, and taste. You can say I shouldnt have posted my inquiry before listening to the podcast. I can ask you if you read the thread properly before you replied to my post.

**I just listened to the podcast yesterday and I can tell you my initial assumptions were formulated pretty positively.
It's actually much worse than I assumed.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

blackcat, what is up with all the HelmutRoole resurrections, and the general bumping of threads from long ago?

Also, wouldn't the question surrounding Landis' testo-postive be better served in one of the many Floyd threads?
(It's a very valid question though. I'd love to know what took place between the evening prior to Morzine, and the lab results after.)




As requested...

 

[blackcat]

blackcat, what is up with all the HelmutRoole resurrections, and the general bumping of threads from long ago?

Also, wouldn't the question surrounding Landis' testo-postive be better served in one of the many Floyd threads?
(It's a very valid question though. I'd love to know what took place between the evening prior to Morzine, and the lab results after.)




As requested...

thanks Jacques...

why I "bumped" a few threads... well, I was searching Helmut Roole's posts for a few quotes, actually one quote I wished to give Sniper, I ended up providing him with four of the quotes, and the one final one I found today was the original I was looking for.


re: the testo? I like my theory.


you see, Freddy Viaene, like Lenders, and those Spanish docs on USPS, like Ferrari, was one of the go-to swannies or soigneurs. he was the doping masseur. He had the "good gear". Makes sense that if anyone will put testo on a rider without them being aware, it is Freddy.

viewtopic.php?t=3077

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Freddy+Viaene

 

[blackcat]

Jacques, this was the quote I went looking for, but found a few more...

You have to stratify the media. You can’t expect a top strata news organization like the New York Times – and it is print journalists who mostly do this work – to give a rat’s ass about someone like, for example, a Tom Danielson. Armstrong: clearly a different beast in terms of coverage since he has celebrity outside of cycling.

(Sidebar: In defense of the media reference Armstrong, you have to balance that coverage in perspective with 9-11, Afghanistan and the Iraq rematch, all going down during this timeframe. Comparatively, an Armstrong doping piece is uninteresting, unimportant and not even on an editor’s radar. Although, there was SI. They probably should’ve looked at it a little closer. )

For something like the Danielson story, that work has to be done by Velonews, Cyclingnews, Pez... In other words, a news organization on the lower rungs of the media strata that cover that specific sport, this case cycling. Problem with this is, those reporters are cozy with the athletes. This is true with sports reporting in general. It’s like that everywhere, every sport. The only way around it is to have a dedicated doping reporter on staff who doesn’t interact with the athletes in any other way. I’ll bet that any reporter covering cycling in North American has at some point sat down for a beer with an athlete whom they were reporting on or had reported on. I’ve done it myself. It probably happens everywhere.

Look, I’m a fan of professional cycling not despite the doping but in large part because of it. The doping makes it real. Not the performances. The performances are unreal. But when an athlete gets caught up in an investigation or pisses hot, that’s when things get real. That’s when all parties involved go into crisis mode, spinning truthiness, marginal gains, special diets and high cadence. People’s livelihoods and reputations hang in the balance. Millions of dollars at stake. And it’s all based on a lie.

High drama. You can’t make this stuff up.

then these other ones

If all the top pro cyclists are doping, why does anyone on this forum still follow pro cycling? I would have thought you would have given up in disgust long ago.

Personally I enjoy the doping aspect of the sport. It makes it more interesting. Call it intangibles.

I wouldn't watch cycling if there weren't doping raids, investigations, cover ups, conspiracies, bribes, six positives from 1999 and, of course, fan boys with inflatable Lance dolls lubed and ready for the Tour.

The investigations. The denials. The comebacks. The tales of redemption. The enemies. The heroes. The corruption. The Elisa Bassos. The coke. The strippers.

..(doesn't this make it more interesting than just the sport alone?)

Of course it does. I'd make this statement over at cyclingforums and people'd get so ****ed off over there. Man, they did not like having the rug pulled out from under them. What's going on behind the curtains is always more interesting.

Vaughters had a couple more years of racing left in his legs but instead departed for the more fiscally fertile and safer grounds behind the scenes. Hell, Livingston, if memory serves me, jumped the small cesspool that is pro cycling and went straight to Wall Street.

Don't get too attached to your idols. They aren't genuine. Armstrong got lucky. Good genes, a good connect and he responded well to the drugs of his generation. Raas, Kuiper, Merckx... the same. Drugs dictated and continue to dictate everything.

What's happening in cycling happens in every sport. There was a guy over at cyclingforums -- I've forgotten his handle but BroDeal likely remembers -- he used to state over and over that cycling is a dirty sport. Not just the doping but everything about it.

He was right. Embrace it. Embrace it or find another sport where the muckety mucks haven't tried to clean it up yet. Some say cleaning up the sport has ruined it, but I'm with Sanitiser on this one. It's only made it mroe interesting.

 

[blackcat]

someone say Elisa Basso?

"yeah, I fukced her too"

 

[blackcat]

it is the white singlets, and those belt buckles, then the western 6 shooter leather belts... really dodgey that just spell "I am a slapper". Lets not forget the fake tan and the blonde peroxide.

Atleast the jnr associate or jnr attorney in a law firm, they just wear their jangly earings to peacock around the office. Elisa, she brought skank to a new level

+ silicon.

invest in Down Corning when Elisa is round the block

 

[blackcat]

white = really dodgy. trailer trash.
belt buckle doubly so.

here is the rodeo belt that just tops the package as a potential berlusconi bunga bunga glamour model belly dancer

 

[blackcat]

^ Arnstrong hotter than donut grease version.

this is why, when you see Prance's hands...

 

[joe_papp]

Re:

Interesting HelmutRoole quotes.

And great pics of Basso's sister. She was almost hot.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

Interesting HelmutRoole quotes.

Joe, since we were just referencing Floyd's T positive, haven't you said that you got popped for testosterone at a time when you weren't even using it?

Any thoughts as to what actually happened in your case (and Floyd's case, for that matter?)

We can always dig up one of the Floyd threads if need be.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Interesting HelmutRoole quotes.

Joe, since we were just referencing Floyd's T positive, haven't you said that you got popped for testosterone at a time when you weren't even using it?

Any thoughts as to what actually happened in your case (and Floyd's case, for that matter?)

We can always dig up one of the Floyd threads if need be.

Freddy Viaene slipping the micky in his massage oil

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Interesting HelmutRoole quotes.

And great pics of Basso's sister. She was almost hot.

Eddy Mazzoleni.

wonder if Prance was one of the dichotomy pairings to his cuckold status?

he was definitely there, but was it pre-Mazzoleni marriage alliteration, or, was it cuckolding... certainly fits the definition of donut grease for Lance.

so you are less annoying than Franzen Joe?
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/07/birders_the_central_park_effect_proves_that_jonathan_franzen_is_the_world_s_most_annoying_bird_watcher_.html

I always thought when they said that the bird watching fratenity, because it is a fraternity, were individual called "twitchers", that there was some intersection between meth-heads and bird-watching. I thought Fresno was urban and not rurual.

Then I saw I had conflated tweakers and twitchers. Pretty honest mistake I must say.

 

[joe_papp]

Re: Re:

...so you are less annoying than Franzen Joe?
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/07/birders_the_central_park_effect_proves_that_jonathan_franzen_is_the_world_s_most_annoying_bird_watcher_.html ...

I hope so. That guy sounds like a neurotic douche.

 

[blackcat]

Joe I was going for my Poe's Law Wildean drollery

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

...
"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term?

Statements such as the following abound in this and other lemond threads:

Lemond never took EPO, if he did he would not been dropped by the legions of dopers who did.

"inescapable"? Fair enough, maybe "a matter of course" would be a better wording.

I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

thanks for clarifying. That's fair enough.

You attributed the word "inescapable" to a particular person ("gillian" specifically and un-named "others") without quoting it...because it was not there to quote. As a rebuttal you're referencing a years-old Race Radio post which in NO WAY contains that term or anything like it, and attributing it here like it was part of the discussion?

This is not a credible form of argument.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

You attributed the word "inescapable" to a particular person ("gillian" specifically and un-named "others") without quoting it...because it was not there to quote. As a rebuttal you're referencing a years-old Race Radio post which in NO WAY contains that term or anything like it, and attributing it here like it was part of the discussion? When a poster consistently constructs arguments in this manner––creating strawmen "claims" or "statements" by other posters, jumping on rumor or speculation then stating it as fact later, posting claims which are later discredited, then posting them again...

the "inescapable" issue has been dealt with, e.g. in the post you replied to, and also here:
viewtopic.php?p=1905308#p1905308
If the case is still not closed for you, please take it to the sidebar thread or to PM.

The rest of your post is just another pot-kettle story clogging the thread.
Please read: viewtopic.php?p=1905320#p1905320

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Well phrased, but please provide links documenting the various allegations of distortion and so on.

But will I then be allowed to reply in kind? Now that would be fun.
It would also massively clog the thread, however. A bit like what happened here:
viewtopic.php?p=1898152#p1898152
But if that's what you want, I'm game.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Well here was an intentional distortion of my words earlier in this very thread.

viewtopic.php?p=1898796#p1898796

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

...
Well phrased, but please provide links documenting the various allegations of distortion and so on.

But will I then be allowed to reply in kind? Now that would be fun.
It would also massively clog the thread, however. A bit like what happened here:
viewtopic.php?p=1898152#p1898152
But if that's what you want, I'm game.

You could just respond to my specific comments above which are documented in the thread instead of this bizarre deflection.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Well phrased, but please provide links documenting the various allegations of distortion and so on.

But will I then be allowed to reply in kind? Now that would be fun.
It would also massively clog the thread, however. A bit like what happened here:
viewtopic.php?p=1898152#p1898152
But if that's what you want, I'm game.

You could just respond to my specific comments above which are documented in the thread instead of this bizarre deflection.

i did just respond. you must have missed it.
viewtopic.php?p=1905691#p1905691

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Well phrased, but please provide links documenting the various allegations of distortion and so on.

My original post has been edited as to remove any not immediately supported facts.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

i did just respond. you must have missed it.
viewtopic.php?p=1905691#p1905691

Fantastic. I hope there isn't any more such mis-attribution moving forward.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

My original post has been edited as to remove any not immediately supported facts.

fantastic. I hope there isn't any more such mis-attribution moving forward.