Log in:  

Register

The Sidebar Thread

Drop in, give us some feedback and talk to the team

Moderator: Irondan

Re:

26 Apr 2016 18:25

Libertine Seguros wrote: you should know full well you don't need to be a feminist (in the definition you use, which seems to only apply to some of the more radical strains thereof) to find something sexist

What I am saying is that it tends to be the 'radicals' who define the debate, and so influence what everybody else thinks, as is their intention.
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

Re:

26 Apr 2016 18:43

Robert21 wrote:Anyhow, I am still trying to work out Vicky P's take on 'sexism'. Isn't the sexual objectification of women supposed to be one of the greatest crimes of 'sexism'. So how does that tie in with her doing near-naked photo shoots for lads mags?

Image


So if a person chooses to display themselves in a manner of *their* choosing, it's alright to treat them poorly? Since that photo was taken, it'd be okay for Sagan to walk up to her and grab her ***!? What about being paid less and getting less support than the men on the team even if you're way more successful?

Objectification has nothing to do with how a person dresses or behaves. It has to do with treating that person as anything other than a person. Despite appearing nude in an ad, you'd never get a journalist walking up to someone like Cippolini and discussing their shoes or who they're dating. Women *still* deal with that crap and on a daily basis.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,503
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Shane Sutton - Team Sky coach

26 Apr 2016 18:52

I had to check my calendar to make sure it is not the 50s--the 1850s. This thread reads like a parody of white male privilege, maybe even a black comic version of it. Either that or it is a shocking look inside the mind of a neanderthal. If British women cyclists have to put up with even a fraction of what is on display here then no wonder they are aggrieved.
"Their world is crumbling. Ours is being built."
DamianoMachiavelli
Junior Member
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 21 Oct 2015 22:35

Re: Re:

26 Apr 2016 22:16

Robert21 wrote:Truth is, my main issue is not even with feminism, let alone women.


No, I've read your long-winded, pompous, and pretentious contributions and on that evidence I'm pretty sure that your problem is with women.
Zinoviev Letter
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,358
Joined: 18 Aug 2010 13:18

Re: Re:

26 Apr 2016 22:26

Robert21 wrote:
Libertine Seguros wrote:Many statements about poor treatment have been made over many years without the recourse to accusations of sexism, so it's not like they've just plunged in there and played the offended card. A lot of the problem at BC is simply blatant favouritism, but seemingly manifesting itself in some ugly ways.

Yes, poor treatment, blatant favouritism, even bullying do seem to have been rife in British Cycling. Not sure that it amounts to true 'sexism' though, even if those who are aggrieved are using this 'toxic' term, knowing this is the surest way to cause the maximum impact and amount of damage.

Libertine Seguros wrote:It does your case no good at all either to not acknowledge that there are many different interpretations and viewpoints within feminism as well, just like any philosophical, social or political ideology, and not all of these viewpoints define sexism, misogyny and all the other terms you've got into a state about the same way.

I think this must be directed at me. Yes, as I said, some who would call themselves feminists even recognise that evolutionary biology has a lot to tell us about gender roles. That said, the vast bulk of the feminist movement is, one way or another, faithful to the constructs of relativism and post modernism, and express an intrinsic hostility to science and reason. Like religious fundamentalists they know they must adopt this standpoint if they are to argue that ''gender is nothing but a social construct" and so on. Even Germain Greer's hostility to trans individuals arises from this faith, as to her women are socially constructed, not products of their genetic makeup. This same underlying faith underpins the vast majority of the feminism pushed in publications such as the Guardian newspaper, so the position I am critical of is still pretty much mainstream, even if there are a few voices of reason even within the feminist movement itself.

I also pointed out that the sort of social constructivism I am critical of is not confined just to the feminist movement. Trying to influence others with carefully fabricated narratives that serve one's interests but might bear only a passing resemblance to objective reality is very much 'the name of the game' these days.


Postmodernism isn't really a live descriptor anymore (sort of like deconstruction) unless you're talking about burger/steak/ brewery, etc. wars in Bermondsey, Bethnal Green et. al.

I'm sure many here could give you bibliographies an arm or two long, but I wonder, for example, how just these two books (and their authors more generally--neither of whom is a postmodernist in whatever senses it was meant to mean) might inflect your reading of this "problem." Leaving aside more overt and heavy going reads that deal strictly with domination and the production of power

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Love-Intimacy-Genealogy-Carnality/dp/0822338890

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691136211/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687762&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=069102989X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0GYVGW3900TND3NZTMMM

Neither author is by any means hostile to science, history or reason. Although both are very good about asking "whose reason?" "To which end?"

Maybe this might be more at the heart of things

http://www.amazon.com/Preliminary-Materials-Young-Girl-Semiotext-Intervention/dp/158435108X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461709303&sr=1-1&keywords=tiqqun+preliminary+materials+young+girl

but be careful, it's dangerous for some readers who identify with it too superficially (and obviously unsettling for others) because although seemingly misogynist, the "young girl" in the title isn't gendered, but stands for anyone consuming and collaborating with the culture in which they find themselves determined and thereby conditioned to try and master--or at least maintain their conditions. So "sexism" becomes a weapon that cuts both ways, and you can't really assign biased expectations of "equivalence" by that logic. It never worked that way before.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,495
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

27 Apr 2016 16:32

Fearless Greg Lemond wrote:I am tending to annoyance no one on this board has been able to astablish a very close link between the introduction of rEPO and Switzerland.
See the Hampsten vs. Lemond thread. At least in the early 90s Switzerland was the place to get your EPO without prescription. You're saying it was a hotspot already in the mid/late-80s? Interesting thought.

For the record, Hampsten 88 could've been EPO, I've mentioned that possibility plenty of times.
Testa would've been able to get his hands on it easily.

People, almost everything is on Dopeology. EPO was easier than blood transfusions.

yes, EPO came to replace blood transfusions, which were quite widespread in the 70s and 80s.

Instead of stating guys like Hampsten were blood transfusing -
Who is stating this? I would say EPO, but whether blood bags or EPO is a bit of a moot point. Hauptsache: blood boosting.
And you'll agree, if Hampsten was doing this, so was Lemond.

btw, what about Hampsten in 86?
Lemond and Hampsten on EPO in 86 certainly seems possible.

the logistics in the eighties were not sufficient for that I can assure you - look better.
If you rule out blood bags, then Hampsten 86 seems a plausible candidate for early EPO, together with Greg. tated that he never felt better than in 86.

That said, I wouldn't rule out blood bags for the early/mid-80s.
For one-day races we know they were common place.
The question of logistics of course relates only to GTs.
If refrigeration was problematic, a tinfoil hat theory of mine is that riders may have brought family members to GTs to donate fresh blood on rest days. It's basically what Eddie B. did with his riders in 84, so that method certainly wasn't unheard of.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

29 Apr 2016 19:12

Fearless Greg Lemond wrote:
sniper wrote:And you kept that Montgomery investment all for yourself? :mad:
Yep, because it is not interesting at all.
Come again?
He gets accused from several sides of using and/or introducing EPO.
Turns out he invested in Montgomery, who in turn was responsible for taking Amgen public.
And you say it's not interesting?
If that's not interesting, then what *is* interesting?
You ever looked at Weisel's palmares from 1989 onwards, trained by Eddie B?
Lemond knew Weisel through Eddie B.
If none of that interests you, I can only assume you're not interested in the topic of Lemond and EPO in the first place. Which is fair enough, mind. You're under no obligation to discuss or even consider that angle.

I can make a timeline too with everyone involved with anyone and then say one and one is two, but, for a matter of fact, one and one is often not two, only if you WANT it to be two.
I agree.
But if you think Sastre, Wiggins, Cancellara, and Ciochiolli doped, because 1+1 =2, you gotta tell me why you think Lemond is clean, i.e. why, in his case, 1+1 isn't 2. If you claim the exception, you carry the burden of evidence. C'est la vie.
Now, I haven't heard a single plausible piece of evidence yet as to why 1+1 wouldn't make 2 in the case of Lemond. Last argument I heard was "well, Lemond said he was appalled by PDM". Lol. That's not even a rumor of a rumor. That's from the horse's friggin mouth. What else was he going to say, when asked about it anno 2014? If that's evidence, we might as well declare the whole peloton anno 2016 clean. They're all appalled by doping.

Another argument I heard was, "well, Phil Andersen said Lemond was clean". Which is funny at best. Give me one reason why Phil "missed test" Andersen would say anything negative about Lemond.
(on a side, did you know about Phil's missed test as well? If so, why not post it?)

So. Any arguments left why Lemond would be different from all other GT contenders? Never tested positive, springs to mind. But I bet there is more, and I'd be eager to discuss it. Until that time I see no reason to treat Lemond any differently from other GT winners.

For instance, do you think Esosfina got doped by Vanmol? He was on the same team.

Whether Esafosfina doped, I don't know. It's pretty inconsequential to the case of Lemond.
Esafosfina wasn't very sure about Lemond, you may remember.
And Esafosfina wasn't getting the three course meal. The top dogs were.

On the topic of Esafosfina, he's been pretty open on this board and I respect him for that, big time.
I also understand why he's hesitant to return here.
It's not pretty what happens to whistleblowers.
And I definitely wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the guy who blows the whistle on Lemond.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

29 Apr 2016 20:33

Sniper, I found it the topic!

Ask l"arriviste'' what my message was when I was digging through the Dutch archives and found 'the Phil Anderson files', a rider who was a, perhaps, my hero - together with Robert Miller and Eric Vanderaerden - in my youth.

Nevertheless, I admire your digging, yet, there is not much is it? Warned you about it, a few times I think?

But, to think Hampsten was blood doping in 1988 is a step too far. That really is ludicrous, insane.

Dont worry about Colin, he is fine.

*EDIT: did I ever say LeMond was clean? Dont think so. I would just like to see some sources more than I found who say he introduced EPO into the peloton, which is, to be frankly, bullscheisse*
il Mito wrote:“I’m in pension, I don’t give a **** about training,” Ferrari said. “They are all strong without me. Did you see the Tour de France?”
User avatar Fearless Greg Lemond
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,202
Joined: 20 Apr 2012 15:07
Location: Netherlands

Re:

29 Apr 2016 21:51

Fearless Greg Lemond wrote:Ask l"arriviste'' what my message was when I was digging through the Dutch archives and found 'the Phil Anderson files', a rider who was a, perhaps, my hero - together with Robert Miller and Eric Vanderaerden - in my youth.
why ask l'arriviste if you're here? i'm interested in those files. can you tell me what's in them and/or where to find them?

Nevertheless, I admire your digging, yet, there is not much is it? Warned you about it, a few times I think?
there isnt much to suggest 1+1 isn't 2.
there is plenty suggesting he doped and used epo.

as for epo: we have
(a) the montgomery connection
(b) the geographic connection
(c) kidney issues
(d) anemia
(e) the iron shots
(f) the rumors
(g) the baffling inconsistencies in his stories
(h) the transformations in 89 and 90.

I think him *using* EPO is pretty hard to deny. Whether he *introduced* it, is a different question.
But somebody must have introduced epo into the peloton. Thus far, the available evidence points at him. Sorry, but that's an objective statement.
Can you think of a better candidate? If so, show me some evidence. I'll be happy to review it.

But, to think Hampsten was blood doping in 1988 is a step too far. That really is ludicrous, insane
There is reasonable suspicion. Testa. Switzerland. The results. The timing.

*EDIT: did I ever say LeMond was clean? Dont think so.
no you didn't. And therefore i'm unsure why u seem rather dismissive of some of the discussion and presentation of info. There is no harm done in discussing and sharing info, is there?

I would just like to see some sources more than I found who say he introduced EPO into the peloton, which is, to be frankly, bullscheisse

Again, somebody must have introduced it. If you know a better candidate, let's discuss.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

30 Apr 2016 11:04

sniper wrote:I think him *using* EPO is pretty hard to deny. Whether he *introduced* it, is a different question.
But somebody must have introduced epo into the peloton. Thus far, the available evidence points at him. Sorry, but that's an objective statement.
Can you think of a better candidate? If so, show me some evidence. I'll be happy to review it.

But, to think Hampsten was blood doping in 1988 is a step too far. That really is ludicrous, insane
There is reasonable suspicion. Testa. Switzerland. The results. The timing.

*EDIT: did I ever say LeMond was clean? Dont think so.
no you didn't. And therefore i'm unsure why u seem rather dismissive of some of the discussion and presentation of info. There is no harm done in discussing and sharing info, is there?

I would just like to see some sources more than I found who say he introduced EPO into the peloton, which is, to be frankly, bullscheisse

Again, somebody must have introduced it. If you know a better candidate, let's discuss.
I think all this is getting a bit much to your head Sniper. '' I'll be happy to review it.'' is such a funny line, you have build a theory around a rumour in the peloton - probably brought into it due to Jan Gisbers who still has to start suing LeMond for his slanderous comments after he left Pills Drugs and Medicine - about someone introducing it to the peloton based on what exactly?

* he came from the US where the drug was developed
* he invested in a company
* he was trained by Eddy B. and has been nice to Eddy afterwards

Etc etc.

Your theory is nothing but that: a theory.

So, lets theorize. When did LeMond introduce EPo to the peloton? 1984? 1985? 1986? 1987? 1988? 1989? 1990?

All we know is some riders used it in 1990, maybe even prior to that, see the Hermans admission. That could have been 1988. So, how did Caja Rural get hold of the drug? Did leMond tip off Fuentes that year? Or perhaps 1987? The year he got shot while visiting his family in California, yep, the geographical connection!

And then, the theory about blood doper Hampsten, come on. I dont know if you were around at the time but if Hampsten was blood doping it sure as hell didnt do him any favours.

Same goes for 'the transformation' in 1989 and 1990. If you had seen that tour you would have seen LeMond was wheelsucking all the time, he clearly wasnt on par with his 1985 - 1986 level, Fignon was much stronger and if he hadnt had that thing on his balls in the last TT he would have won it, deservedly so too. LeMond on epo would have been cool to watch, Fignon too by the way.
il Mito wrote:“I’m in pension, I don’t give a **** about training,” Ferrari said. “They are all strong without me. Did you see the Tour de France?”
User avatar Fearless Greg Lemond
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,202
Joined: 20 Apr 2012 15:07
Location: Netherlands

Re: Re:

30 Apr 2016 21:30

Robert21 wrote:
saganftw wrote:she is free to objectify her body if she wants and god bless her for that

Yes, I am aware that my real problem is expecting the whole gender debate to make any sort of consistent, logical sense. :)

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.


Pendleton's prior actions have no connection with accusations of systemic discrimination, and alleging otherwise is the very worst kind of victim-blaming.
choose life choose a car choose smack choose gullibility choose marx choose opium choose religion choose masses
-blackcat
Cannibal72
Member
 
Posts: 953
Joined: 06 Feb 2016 20:49

09 May 2016 03:22

Why has this thread been stickied?
Bronstein
Junior Member
 
Posts: 292
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re:

09 May 2016 03:33

Bronstein wrote:Why has this thread been stickied?


Preparation for the TDF? ;)
User avatar yespatterns
Member
 
Posts: 844
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 15:34
Location: Biggest Little City!

Re:

09 May 2016 13:09

Bronstein wrote:Why has this thread been stickied?

Everything to do with Lance gets stickied here. :)
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,596
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Why Alberto Contador is Cycling's One True Champion

10 May 2016 10:37

If I'm starting a thread headlined "Why Sep Vanmarcke is Cycling's One True Champion?" What are the odds that it get stickied?
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,983
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Re: Why Alberto Contador is Cycling's One True Champion

10 May 2016 10:46

Echoes wrote:If I'm starting a thread headlined "Why Sep Vanmarcke is Cycling's One True Champion?" What are the odds that it get stickied?


Probably the same odds that Vanmarcke wins a monument. :D :D
"This is the Tour that will determine If I can drink espresso at the Garda lake the rest of my life"
User avatar Valv.Piti
Moderator
 
Posts: 7,421
Joined: 03 Aug 2015 00:00
Location: Dinamarca, Aalborg

10 May 2016 10:49

No but seriously, we all agree this is wildly inappropriate, right?
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,443
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re:

10 May 2016 10:52

hrotha wrote:No but seriously, we all agree this is wildly inappropriate, right?


Yup, totally, Contador is a very liked rider on this forum it seems
"This is the Tour that will determine If I can drink espresso at the Garda lake the rest of my life"
User avatar Valv.Piti
Moderator
 
Posts: 7,421
Joined: 03 Aug 2015 00:00
Location: Dinamarca, Aalborg

Re:

10 May 2016 15:13

hrotha wrote:No but seriously, we all agree this is wildly inappropriate, right?


Seriously? Who is "we"? Why would we all agree? Who appointed you to say we all agree? What's inappropriate about it?
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

10 May 2016 15:19

IMO, pinning this thread helps bury the primary thread about Contador that contains a more balanced view of his doping. I don't think either of the two threads was noteworthy enough to be pinned.
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,914
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

PreviousNext

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Back to top