Alex Dowsett

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
You said "I have to admit, I was rather surprised when he announced his attempt for the first time last year." So when he announced it and was a top 10 TTist you were surprised, but you now imply that if he was a top 10 TTist at the moment you wouldn't be. So which is it? Either he was a top 10 TTist when you heard about this attempt and thus it isn't surprising, or being a top 10 TTist is irrelevant so it's strange you brought it up?
I'm not implying anywhere that if he was top 10 TTist at the moment, then I wouldn't be surprised. By saying he's not in "top 10" (that was just a random rhetorical number that I used, don't put that much into that), I simply wanted to point out, that if you had to think of a rider, who could challange Victor's record, Dowsett certainly isn't the one, who comes to your mind in the first place. Neither last year, nor this year. That's why his annoucement made me surprised. I would've been equally surprised had he announced his attempt this year for the first time. The only reason this time I wasn't, was because I've already known it's gonna happen, cause it failed to happen last year.

So the level of TTing changes super fast, 7 months is acceptable and 12 isn't? What is the arbitrary cut off and how is this measured? And how does it relate to the fact he was a top 10 TTist when you heard about this attempt?
The thing is, Campenaerts proved his TT ability 4 weeks before his attempt, by winning that Tirreno stage against a strong field. His results in ITTs were also much more consistent in the period leading to the attempt, as I showed in one of my previous posts. The best Alex's result after being 9th at Worlds in '20, was 14th in the Giro opening stage in May. In the only other ITT he started in 2021 (UAE, pancake flat course) he placed 27th.

You seem to miss my point about team leaders, I'm well aware that the HR is different to both road racing and TTing. There are team leaders who haven't won races in years and have about the same chance of winning as Dowsett had of breaking this record. No road races are obligatory, by your logic they should all not try to win.
No road races are obligatory? So what are the riders paid for?
Of course they should all try to win, because that's what their job is about and they have no other choice being professional cyclists (if we talk about leaders). WHR is a totally different thing, you can't compare those and say that's my logic.

So you didn't have all the information, were surprised, and now admit it was wrong to be. That's fine, but then why post in this thread and suggest that your initial surprise, which you've said was the wrong position to take, is a good reason for this thread being posted a year later, when all of Dowsett's intentions and motivations were extremely clear (you've even posted about his YouTube Videos elsewhere)?
Again, I haven't admitted it was wrong to be surprised. I just said that all of the Dowsett's intentions and motivations beyond braking the record itself, add another dimension to his attempt, making it more reasonable. But at the same time, looking at it from the record-braking perspective only, and I'll say it again, imo Dowsett haven't shown enough to consider him as a serious threat for Campenaert's record and beacuse of this simple fact, I think I had every right to feel surprised.
 
When Dowsett made the announcement he was one of the top TT riders in the world, one of two in that list, based on worlds TT, who had previously held the hour record (and had beaten the other, Dennis) and had expressed an interest in having another go several times. Whether he was going to manage it or not, if you had all the information it really wasn't surprising. It would have been more surprising if Ganna or WvA had announced an attempt considering the sacrifices they would have had to make. The rest of this is just going to go in circles.

And yes, no races are obligatory. It's up to the team and the riders what their schedule is.
 
Tbh i think it's our mistake for wasting time reading the thread
Perhaps maybe you should shut down the Clinic altogether and we can all go on our merry ways.
What's the point of introducing a discussion in a forum devoted to the topic of doping when you're just wasting your time by reading it?
Sure, it serves a purpose for those trying to refine their ways of shooting down a discussion, so there's that.
Otherwise, what is the purpose of this sub-section of the forum?
Why not just go all in and erase this section altogether?
Come on, you can do it!
 
Reactions: yaco
Hey there, King moderator.
I didn't create the Clinic; your bosses who don't pay you did, but I digress.
I did not create the doping culture in cycling. Those directly involved did. Until you either close the Clinic or I get banned by you, King Boonen, I can ask questions.
p.s. You have yet to respond to my question asked in the thread I launched.
I've already repeated it once, so I'm not going to do so again.
I think it's suffice to say that your answer is no.
 
I don't know why you think anyone said you can't ask questions (although it does help if you use a question mark so people can decipher which bit is a question). you mean this?

I'm wondering if someone much smarter than me can chime in to say the revolutionary advances is enough to overcome the physiological barriers incurred by attempting the Hour Record.
I don't even know what you're asking. You are aware people have both attempted and completed the hour before these "revolutionary advances" yes? Those physiological barriers have been overcome on many occasions.
 
King Moderator, you got it right! I meant to use a question mark! I'm glad you understood the meaning of the sentence. We don't want no Mods around here who can't distinguish a typo now, do we? That's some excellent sleuthing.
Now that we've established your "Mod Hat" has been off since the beginning of this thread and you've dropped the gloves so to speak, why didn't you say you didn't know what I was asking at the outset?
We could have avoided all this cussin' and feudin' if you and others just answered the question I asked. Or perhaps just ignored it altogether. If so, this thread would have been buried long ago.
Feel free to carry on, Mod Hat Off.
 
@King Boonen How else can someone ask doping related question on this forum other than opening a thread in the clinic? As long as our friend Carlton's greatest defender wishes to have this topic open for Dowsett, I don't think it is anyone's right to blast him for that. If there's nothing to talk about for this rider, it will quickly go into oblivion, don't worry.
 
Reactions: the delgados
Hey King Mod Hat Off.
I hope you put the Mod Hat on if you choose to answer any of the following questions that I do not know the answer to. These are strictly non-rhetorical questions.
Have the administrators of this web site and/or contributors to this web site ever been threatened with a lawsuit by World Tour cycling team representatives for things someone may or may not know? Over the years we've see a bunch of what I would call "insiders" be banned. Then you have dim-witted folks like me who simply asks questions that are quickly shot down by moderators who don't even bother to take their moderator "hats off" (Don't sue me, please. I'm broke).
Reason I ask is it seems a lid is being put on a topic of conversation that is rife for questioning.
I have no idea if anyone is doping, but if I or others can't ask, then there is no point in wasting time here in the Clinic.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: noob
King Boonen!
Where art thou?
What are we to make of the fact you haven't answered not one, but two questions?
I am just inquiring, and I mean no harm, King Boonen. I'd buy you a beer if we ever met in person.
I'm just curious, is all.
I have a question that I hope you think about before responding:
What if Paul Kimmage chimed in to ask the same questions? How would you react?
Take your time, King Boonen.
 
Well it's not like you're asking tough questions or being an uncompromising righteous journalist here is it, it's basically just "hey does anyone have any dirt on Dowsett because I got nothing"
You are correct, sir. I have absolutely nothing other than asking a question(s) in the Clinic -- which is a sub-forum devoted to doping related questions.
You seem like an intelligent person, so I'm going to assume you know the comparison made was to point out the dissimilarities between me and Kimmage. I thought that was a given, but yeah, I'm not Paul Kimmage. Thanks for pointing that out. But what evidence did he have when chasing down Armstrong?
Meanwhile, I have asked questions that have gone unanswered. No one his holding a gun to someone's head and demanding answers. Moderators and members of the public can ignore them altogether. That's fine.
Do I need to remind you that I didn't ask if anyone had any dirt on Dowsett? If that was my intention, there is no way in hell I would ask the question on a public forum.
Again, you seem like a smart guy, which is why I'm a bit surprised that you would put words that I didn't say in my mouth.
 
Just one more thing and I'll be on my merry way.
Despite the fact that King Mod Hat Off refuses to answer any questions, it seems obvious what is going on here.
The devolution of the Clinic has taken part in stages. First you ban the most vocal members, then tuck the Clinic away in a cozy little corner and unleash the Mod Hats when anyone raises a question without accusation. Anyone who merely asks a question is treated like a pariah. Then, voila ! The Clinic fades away and we can all go back to talking about sexy cyclists.
Actually, what you guys are doing is smart. You're covering your asses against lawsuits while pretending the whole doping thing ended long ago.
Doping?! The hell are you talking about?
 
Just one more thing and I'll be on my merry way.
Despite the fact that King Mod Hat Off refuses to answer any questions, it seems obvious what is going on here.
The devolution of the Clinic has taken part in stages. First you ban the most vocal members, then tuck the Clinic away in a cozy little corner and unleash the Mod Hats when anyone raises a question without accusation. Anyone who merely asks a question is treated like a pariah. Then, voila ! The Clinic fades away and we can all go back to talking about sexy cyclists.
Actually, what you guys are doing is smart. You're covering your asses against lawsuits while pretending the whole doping thing ended long ago.
Doping?! The hell are you talking about?
Maybe it's time to wrap up your aluminium hat and realize that you opened up a pointless thread without contributing anything meanful and people have simply no interest debating anything in here based on nothing. The silence on your ramblings is not down to crazy censorship but because this topic is pointless as feck.
Your "Listen lads, I'm just asking questions" stance is transparent as hell and you opening question was dumb to begin with - what sort of extensive answer did you expect from asking if "revolutionary advances are enough to overcome physiological barriers"? "Yes, these advances are so crazy that you don't need to put in any effort going 60km/h" or "No, technical advances and material are irrelevant, if you have good enough legs you can get the hour record on your grannys bike."
That's like no substance to debate on at all, and your whole "I'm just a humble seeker of answers, may any of the wiser members shed light on this matter" style is cringey as feck, what are you - a medieval monk?
 
@King Boonen How else can someone ask doping related question on this forum other than opening a thread in the clinic? As long as our friend Carlton's greatest defender wishes to have this topic open for Dowsett, I don't think it is anyone's right to blast him for that. If there's nothing to talk about for this rider, it will quickly go into oblivion, don't worry.
You seem to be under the impression that this thread is a microcosm of the clinic. I'm not sure why considering you've posted in other threads in the clinic, but just to make it clear, it isn't.
 
King Moderator, you got it right! I meant to use a question mark! I'm glad you understood the meaning of the sentence. We don't want no Mods around here who can't distinguish a typo now, do we? That's some excellent sleuthing.
Now that we've established your "Mod Hat" has been off since the beginning of this thread and you've dropped the gloves so to speak, why didn't you say you didn't know what I was asking at the outset?
We could have avoided all this cussin' and feudin' if you and others just answered the question I asked. Or perhaps just ignored it altogether. If so, this thread would have been buried long ago.
Feel free to carry on, Mod Hat Off.
This is the only part of your original post that could reasonably be framed as an intelligible question:

Now, I'm not one to rain on anyone's parade, but since this is the Clinic, I'm wondering if everyone here thinks the guy is cleans.
you still haven't explained what you mean by the other part.


Hey King Mod Hat Off.
I hope you put the Mod Hat on if you choose to answer any of the following questions that I do not know the answer to. These are strictly non-rhetorical questions.
Have the administrators of this web site and/or contributors to this web site ever been threatened with a lawsuit by World Tour cycling team representatives for things someone may or may not know? Over the years we've see a bunch of what I would call "insiders" be banned. Then you have dim-witted folks like me who simply asks questions that are quickly shot down by moderators who don't even bother to take their moderator "hats off" (Don't sue me, please. I'm broke).
Reason I ask is it seems a lid is being put on a topic of conversation that is rife for questioning.
I have no idea if anyone is doping, but if I or others can't ask, then there is no point in wasting time here in the Clinic.
You're asking the wrong person. As you've loved to point out, we're volunteers (yes, some people think volunteering is still worthwhile). The only people I've ever had contact with are the other mods and the admins whose only involvement in the site seems to the forum. Why you think a large media organisation would share that information with us I really have no idea, but to make it very clear, I have absolutely no idea if CN has ever been threatened with a law suit. Dan Benson is on Twitter, I have no idea if he'll answer but you can go ask him.

King Boonen!
Where art thou?
What are we to make of the fact you haven't answered not one, but two questions?
I am just inquiring, and I mean no harm, King Boonen. I'd buy you a beer if we ever met in person.
I'm just curious, is all.
I have a question that I hope you think about before responding:
What if Paul Kimmage chimed in to ask the same questions? How would you react?
Take your time, King Boonen.
I'd refer you back to the fact we're volunteers, but let's be honest, I really don't think you're making these posts to actually ask questions.

Just one more thing and I'll be on my merry way.
Despite the fact that King Mod Hat Off refuses to answer any questions, it seems obvious what is going on here.
The devolution of the Clinic has taken part in stages. First you ban the most vocal members, then tuck the Clinic away in a cozy little corner and unleash the Mod Hats when anyone raises a question without accusation. Anyone who merely asks a question is treated like a pariah. Then, voila ! The Clinic fades away and we can all go back to talking about sexy cyclists.
Actually, what you guys are doing is smart. You're covering your asses against lawsuits while pretending the whole doping thing ended long ago.
Doping?! The hell are you talking about?
Carly Simon put it best.

The last user who was mainly active in the clinic, could be considered an "insider" and was banned is probably Sniper. I wasn't a mod when they were banned.


To be perfectly clear again, I'll be exercising the same right any user has and I won't be engaging in this discussion anymore, not least because we're not supposed to discussion moderator actions, although I thought it was worth the courtesy of responding. That discussion needs to end now. If you actually want to explain what your initial question is I would do my best to answer it or not, if I can't. Again this:

I'm wondering if someone much smarter than me can chime in to say the revolutionary advances is enough to overcome the physiological barriers incurred by attempting the Hour Record.
doesn't make any sense. People have completed Hour record attempts.
 
I have broken my promise by saying I'm on my merry way.
This has become a schit show that I don't wish to be part of anymore.
I was simply asking questions that the Clinic allows.
Thank you, King Boonen for your replies. I promise this will be my last correspondence, because my fragile ego can't take much more. Just a couple points before taking my leave:
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about when saying I assume a large media organization would share information with you. That has absolutely nothing to do with my suggestion that professional cycling teams may have warned you that a lawsuit was coming, which was based on a lot of questions that now banned members wrote. It would take no longer than five minutes to mention at least a dozen names of members who were vocal critics who were banned. Again, that is a question. I have no clue what you mean by "large media organizations." If you are suggesting Sky, then you are proving my point.
Just a couple follow-ups before getting out of your hair.
Like I said, my questions are based on the history of doping in cycling. I find it odd that so many people pretend that doping went the way of the dodo, because, you know, Dowsett attempted his world hour record riding with a chain that costs 950 bux. That does not jive.
Finally, as said many times, I do not have evidence that anyone is doping. But my understanding is the Clinic was a forum meant to ask the questions. Maybe go to your bosses who don't pay you and suggest that the Clinic be shut down altogether. If questions get quashed, there is no point in asking them.
 
You seem to be under the impression that this thread is a microcosm of the clinic. I'm not sure why considering you've posted in other threads in the clinic, but just to make it clear, it isn't.
Just to make it clear, I have no idea what you mean by saying this thread being "microcosm of the clinic". All I know is that The Clinic sub-section of the forum consists of individual threads created by respective forum members and dedicated to individual athletes, events or news. There's no harm if there's a thread dedicated to Alex Dowsett among them, is there?

And I am not aware either of any rule that only threads meeting certain "quality criteria" could be created. Some threads are better, some are worthless - that's simply how it is. It's also not like the clinic has been busy place recently so from my point of view, any new impetus is welcome. Even if it is three times miss before the next hit. This thread appears to be a miss so far, but who knows, maybe sometime later we'll find it handy...
 
Just to make it clear, I have no idea what you mean by saying this thread being "microcosm of the clinic". All I know is that The Clinic sub-section of the forum consists of individual threads created by respective forum members and dedicated to individual athletes, events or news. There's no harm if there's a thread dedicated to Alex Dowsett among them, is there?
Microcosm of the clinic would mean that this thread is seen as representative of what happens in other threads in the clinic. It clearly isn't.

As to your second point, no one has said people can't post threads like this, but you seem to be advocating for people not being allowed to criticise those threads. That's not how the clinic works either. If someone posts something ridiculous it should be called out as such.

And I am not aware either of any rule that only threads meeting certain "quality criteria" could be created. Some threads are better, some are worthless - that's simply how it is. It's also not like the clinic has been busy place recently so from my point of view, any new impetus is welcome. Even if it is three times miss before the next hit. This thread appears to be a miss so far, but who knows, maybe sometime later we'll find it handy...
There's actually been lots of attempts to ensure that things posted in the clinic have at least some tangential connection to real world doping offences and accusations, because some of the speculation can be utter nonsense that results in long winded discussions that go in circles, and having thread after thread made just because someone doesn't like a particular rider and wants to cast aspersions against them creates arguments that then have to be dealt with. This was stopped due to assessment issues, but you can still be required to provide evidence to back up claims. If you think that, because the clinic is a bit quiet, then a reasonable level of evidence to cast someone's reputation into doubt is "they're going to have another go at something they've done well at in the past" that's up to you. Other people are still allowed to call it out if they disagree.
 
I disagree that The Clinic has declined because "insiders" were banned (who did you consider an insider anyway? The Hog?) or because discussion was stifled. If anything, I'd argue it has declined because of threads like this where there's nothing of value to discuss.

But of course the real reason why The Clinic has declined (and also why this is the only kind of discussion we get) is that there's hardly any important news, hardly any revelations, hardly any proper data to discuss. Under Cookson and now Lappartient, the antidoping narrative has become largely irrelevant. There was a moment of crisis with the Armstrong debacle but omertà won the cultural war after all.
 
hrotha:
I agree with everything you said. That's why I started the thread. Reason being is there's no point in a sub-forum called the Clinic if people are being ridiculed for asking questions.
I carefully worded my original question knowing full well that the backlash would begin.
One member (Indian Cyclist?) took a stab at it and I thanked him or her for the response. That's what reasonable people do. It seems the question didn't get through to others, and I cannot comment why, because I don't know.
I knew what I wrote was going to "poke the bear" and that was the point. I don't know that Dowsett is doping, nor did I say he was. Anything I ask is based on history and the stories concocted to throw the scent off the trail. Chain that costs $900? Sure! Close the Clinic down if these topics aren't up for discussion.
King Mod could have easily answered my question about lawsuits by asking his boss himself, but the King chose to put the onus on me. I'm sure Benson has access to the forums, so the question has already been asked.
I know I'm breaking a promise not to reply once again, but I cannot help but reply to things that are said or not said.
Citing one former member as a possible insider is disingenuous. You're not stupid, hrotha. You've been here long enough to know there has been plenty of people who posted saying things that eventually became pubic.
For what it's worth, I expect professional athletes to do whatever they can and in whatever way imaginable to achieve their goals. If it turns out that Dowsett spent 900 bux on a chain rather than a little pick-me-up, good on him. I would have done the opposite, but whatever. And again, I feel the need to reiterate that I have absolutely no idea if the guy is doping. Also, I wished the guy the best of luck when I posted the thread.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY