Alex Dowsett

[PeterB]

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.

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.

Just for the reference, these are the opening posts of some of the recently created threads in the Clinic for various other riders:

Standard Clinic logic says anyone winning should get a thread so here's Sammy Be's. Have at it, guys.

So, I don't see a clinic thread about the Pidder Piddleman. Not sure what folks might think here, but I think when we have another do it all wunderkind who can outsprint (or almost outsprint) the high wattage sprinters, but is super lightweight and climbs the same and shoots out of every corner, well, I think he deserves his own clinic thread too

I see another cycling feel good wonderstory with the return from broken collarbone to amazing instant results and perhaps even an Olympic medal?

Vuelta 2021:
Wins two mountain stages!
Then yesterday he soloed into the Mountains Jersey and was first to start the last climb.
Today he was back to pulling on the front for DSM

Did you notice that all these threads were created with no particular information in the opening post concerning any wrong-doing, some at most mentioning very faint suspicions about why that thread should exist in the Clinic at all? Why is that so? Because that's perfectly normal and understandable and happens in everyday communication, too. One proposes a topic and sometimes it develops into long and fruitful discussion. Sometimes noone is interested in the topic and it makes no sense contributing to it. But without starting it, you never know for sure, which one it is.

So again, this thread was in my opinion opened in a perfectly normal CN Clinic way and I just do not understand why you tried so vehemently to shut it down as pointless and not even worth any speculation.

 

[King Boonen]

Just for the reference, these are the opening posts of some of the recently created threads in the Clinic for various other riders:




Did you notice that all these threads were created with no particular information in the opening post concerning any wrong-doing, some at most mentioning very faint suspicions about why that thread should exist in the Clinic at all? Why is that so? Because that's perfectly normal and understandable and happens in everyday communication, too. One proposes a topic and sometimes it develops into long and fruitful discussion. Sometimes noone is interested in the topic and it makes no sense contributing to it. But without starting it, you never know for sure, which one it is.

There's a really, really big difference in those threads, see if you can find it. fmk_RoI's thread is a really, really big hint. And it's funny that you haven't quoted the second post in the Sam Bennett thread...

So again, this thread was in my opinion opened in a perfectly normal CN Clinic way and I just do not understand why you tried so vehemently to shut it down as pointless and not even worth any speculation.

I've responded to this:

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.

but to be extremely clear. As has been pointed out, I am a moderator. I wouldn't have to try to shut down a thread if I thought it shouldn't exist. I could very easily lock it until it was felt that it was needed or even delete it. That hasn't happened. The thread is still here and we are posting in it.

If the thread isn't pointless then please present all the evidence you have, because you've literally only engaged in an off-topic discussion so far.

 

[PeterB]

If the thread isn't pointless then please present all the evidence you have, because you've literally only engaged in an off-topic discussion so far.

"Evidence", like really...?!?! So now the Clinic is restricted to posts containing evidence?

By the way, I am very well aware of off-topicality of my posts in this thread and I am more than happy to leave this place for further discussion on its acual topic, if there is any, you just seem to conveniently forget that our exchange in fact addresses your comments attacking the opening post and its poster, posted well before my involvement:

So you have absolutely no evidence he is doping and you decided to start a thread for him in the clinic..?

The current discussion is literally about whether this thread has any merit in the clinic.

You gave us a classic example of "JAQing off".

I get irritated that a cyclist winning a race seems to be enough for random speculation these days, but a cyclist just attempting something now merits speculation? That needs to be called out.

Admittedly, besides that you also contributed with some good content in this thread so hopefully it can now continue like this without having to defend it against posts criticizing the delgados for daring to even create it.

 

[King Boonen]

"Evidence", like really...?!?! So now the Clinic is restricted to posts containing evidence?

Yes, evidence. You could easily tie Dowsett to people through Movistar if you wanted to, there's some evidence right there. I didn't ask you provide proof, I didn't set a level of evidence, I just asked you to provide some content on the subject of the thread you are desperate to remove criticism of. This is the generally accepted level within the clinic and is literally in the rules you agree to when posting here. I'll even quote it here:

Amendment to Forum Rules for Discussions in The Clinic

• Discussion or speculation of professional cyclist use of performance enhancers or banned substances should include supporting evidence.
• Users are required to provide evidence when challenged, as well as engaging with arguments counter to the assertion with substantive facts and references.
• Remember that the subject of speculation and discussion on this matter are human beings deserving of respect and dignity.
• We ask that you keep discourse within expectations of these guidelines to ensure a healthy community for this topic.

By the way, I am very well aware of off-topicality of my posts in this thread and I am more than happy to leave this place for further discussion on its acual topic, if there is any, you just seem to conveniently forget that our exchange in fact addresses your comments attacking the opening post and its poster, posted well before my involvement:

None of my posts have attacked the OP. Every single one of those quoted posts is criticism directed at the thread and its content.

Again, if you think the thread is worthwhile, provide worthwhile content.

 

[the delgados]

You're asking Peter B to provide worthwhile content, but that notion is obviously subjective. Just because you don't find it interesting does not mean questions asked are without merit. I know you weren't attacking me personally, but I think we can all agree that your messages have been an attempt to shut down conversation.
Which goes back to my question that has still gone unanswered: Have the administrators or members of this forum ever been threatened in any way by representatives of World Tour cycling teams?
First you made fun of me for forgetting to include a question mark at the end of a sentence, then you avoided the question altogether by saying it's my job to approach Daniel Benson.
I think the appropriate word here is "deflection."
P.S. Interactions between people are often organic -- they tend to morph into other areas of interest. There is nothing wrong with that. That's the beauty of communication. Unless someone is deliberately throwing a spanner in the works, it seems to me that most people are acting in good faith. And by that I mean trying to find some semblance of truth.

 

[the delgados]

Hey everyone!
Did you miss me?
I was banned a while back for asking questions, and I'm probably back for the last time before the next bannination.
Just a quick note to say it has been a lot of fun interacting with members of this forum over the years. Sincerely, I have learned a lot and really appreciate the insight and intelligence that members of this forum have provided.
I understand that administers and moderators of this web site are done talking about doping. I respect that they need to protect their property against potential legal action. I can only assume that's why I was banned, because questions asked both publicly and privately have never been answered. That's ok. No one is obligated to answer my questions.
Just in case this is my last melodramatic, tear-jerking post (It's ok, I'll be fine,I swear!) I hope someone steps in my shoes and advocates for my man Carlton Kirby. He is both awesome and misunderstood.
Fare thee well, fellow members! Ride safe and keep the rubber side down.
p.s. For interesting insight regarding doping in today's day and age, check out the Road Bikers Poznan Youtube channel. He supplies a lot of interesting commentary. Do I know he's right? No. But it's worth listening to without worrying about being batted down for asking a question.

 

[Cookster15]

I think this thread was silly. But having being a member for over 10 years and I think having lurked here since Floyd was caught I have a hard time believing that you can’t post without evidence. Is this a new rule? When did the “amendment” to The Clinic discussion take effect?

What I find good about the Clinic is you can openly discuss what you think without getting into trouble. Looks like the lawyers are spoiling the fun again. These kind of rules have the potential to destroy this forum and that would be a great shame as much of what I have learned about the sport is via the CN forums.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I have a hard time believing that you can’t post without evidence.

Have you thought to check the rules on that?

• Discussion or speculation of professional cyclist use of performance enhancers or banned substances should include supporting evidence.
• Users are required to provide evidence when challenged, as well as engaging with arguments counter to the assertion with substantive facts and references.

Is that really too onerous a requirement for you? We could test your belief in evidence free claims by making some outrageous claim about you, perhaps. Except, of course, we can't, cause there's a rule there to protect you from that.

Looks like the lawyers are spoiling the fun again.

Without wanting to get too meta here but ... where's your evidence for that? There's a few people round here - some of whom seem determined to commit suicide by moderation when it would be a lot easier for everyone if they just deleted their account themselves instead of playing the martyr - like to think that something so important has been said that lawyers have got involved and had it taken down when the reality is more often like the Babes on Bikes III thread's demise, both obvious and dull.

 

[Cookster15]

Have you thought to check the rules on that?Is that really too onerous a requirement for you? We could test your belief in evidence free claims by making some outrageous claim about you, perhaps. Except, of course, we can't, cause there's a rule there to protect you from that.Without wanting to get too meta here but ... where's your evidence for that? There's a few people round here - some of whom seem determined to commit suicide by moderation when it would be a lot easier for everyone if they just deleted their account themselves instead of playing the martyr - like to think that something so important has been said that lawyers have got involved and had it taken down when the reality is more often like the Babes on Bikes III thread's demise, both obvious and dull.

Sure I checked I even quoted the reference to the apparently new(er) rules by KB. The rules appear to have been changed. I suspect for legal reasons. Were the rules the same in say 2010? Nope - that’s why it’s an “amendment”.

There have been outrageous claims in the Clinic for many years - it’s normal. Pros learn to ignore them. Like any internet banter.

 

[fmk_RoI]

There have been outrageous claims in the Clinic for many years - it’s normal.

There's been drugs in cycling for many years - are you saying that's perfectly normal too and riders shouldn't be banned for doping?

 

[BlueRoads]

Although there is really no special hint at Dowsett doping and therefor no need to put up a thread for him (delgados' thought that you would better put the chain money into doping doesn't make much sense, when one method is legal and unproblematic for your health and the other just isn't), it's also not exactly outragious to suspect people of doping when they are pursuing a sport in which athletes have been caught or freely admitted doping over and over and over again, so that sanity and reason tell you there is a very good chance of a rider doping...

 

[Cookster15]

There's been drugs in cycling for many years - are you saying that's perfectly normal too and riders shouldn't be banned for doping?

That is besides the point. A straw man.

 

[fmk_RoI]

That is besides the point. A straw man.

It's not. I'm asking if you're a hypocrite. They must be held to a higher moral standard than us, seems to be what you believe.

I note also that you have failed to produce evidence supporting your claim the lawyers have been involved, despite being asked to support this claim. Should I point you in the direction of the rules, again, or just accept that you have no evidence?

 

[Cookster15]

It's not. I'm asking if you're a hypocrite. They must be held to a higher moral standard than us, seems to be what you believe.

I note also that you have failed to produce evidence supporting your claim the lawyers have been involved, despite being asked to support this claim. Should I point you in the direction of the rules, again, or just accept that you have no evidence?

That’s quite a rant. The internet is a very big place and cycling is a microcosm of what gets discussed about much bigger international sports. No idea why you have a bee in your bonnet anyway go away I made my point clear. If you have a comprehension problem that’s not my problem. You are the one who trolled my comment. I don’t have the time or inclination to take apart your silly posts. Goodbye.

 

[fmk_RoI]

You are the one who trolled my comment

Oooh! Get you!

Play the troll card when you've nothing better in your hand and you've already gone all in.

So much for debate...

Still not answering the lawyers question, BTW, so that's a clear answer now: no evidence, just more nonsense that plays well to the paranoia/egomania of others.

(This is now so far off topic that the moderators really should consider locking this thread. Poor old Alex Dowsett...)

 

[Ripper]

I would say a lot of threads are started with some evidence, at least in the original poster's eyes. Now, it is debatable how good the evidence often is. Let's face it, sometimes it's outrageous and often there is not much.

I think one of the issues with this particular thread has been something along the lines of markedly less evidence, even compared to normal. I think @BlueRoads summed it up well, that @the delgados saw the purchase of expensive equipment to be associated with an increased likelihood of doping, which does not seem to be well supported by ... anything really.

And of course there has been a fair bit of back and forth off topic posting

 

[Ripper]

Hey everyone!
Did you miss me?
I was banned a while back for asking questions, and I'm probably back for the last time before the next bannination.
Just a quick note to say it has been a lot of fun interacting with members of this forum over the years. Sincerely, I have learned a lot and really appreciate the insight and intelligence that members of this forum have provided.
I understand that administers and moderators of this web site are done talking about doping. I respect that they need to protect their property against potential legal action. I can only assume that's why I was banned, because questions asked both publicly and privately have never been answered. That's ok. No one is obligated to answer my questions.
Just in case this is my last melodramatic, tear-jerking post (It's ok, I'll be fine,I swear!) I hope someone steps in my shoes and advocates for my man Carlton Kirby. He is both awesome and misunderstood.
Fare thee well, fellow members! Ride safe and keep the rubber side down.
p.s. For interesting insight regarding doping in today's day and age, check out the Road Bikers Poznan Youtube channel. He supplies a lot of interesting commentary. Do I know he's right? No. But it's worth listening to without worrying about being batted down for asking a question.

I didn't know that you were banned! Sorry to hear that. I'm glad you're back. However, I don't think it happened because you asked a question about doping, I think it happened because you were being a bit pedantic and argumentative.

 

[the delgados]

Hey guys.
I've read some messages here and just want to make clear that I never accused anyone of doping.
I've been a member of this forum since 2009 and have noted the change of tone regarding the subject and was merely making mention of it. I did not accuse Dowsett of doping; I made a suggestion and raised a point that apparently was inflammatory. I made clear that I am not an expert, nor did I follow Dowsett's training plans. I was just asking a question that has been raised many times over the years in the Clinic. I didn't ask in the pro cycling forum, nor anywhere else. I was respecting the rules by raising the topic in the Clinic. I was subsequently banned without notice for stepping on fmk-rol's toes. Normally members of this forum are given a warning before being banned. I'm already embarrassed by making some of this about me. It's not about me. As stated, I know nothing, nor do I proclaim to know someone is doping. I'm just speaking as a member od this forum since 2009. Questions I've asked privately have gone unanswered and that's ok; owners of this web site can do whatever they want.
Go back to page one of this thread and you will see someone answered my original question. My response was as follows: Thanks for answering a question. End of story, right? Apparently not.

 

[yaco]

Starting a thread means you are accusing a person of doping, whether by inference or not.

 

[42x16ss]

I wouldn't go so far. But I'd agree that there is no special hint for him being doped other than that he's a pro cyclist.

As a haemophiliac it's highly doubtful that Dowsett is blood doping, and EPO would bring about a whole raft of potentially lethal complications.

I can't say he's 100% cleans but if Dowsett is messing with blood doping or boosting, he's taking his life into his own hands

 

[fmk_RoI]

I was subsequently banned without notice for stepping on fmk-rol's toes. Normally members of this forum are given a warning before being banned.

Gosh! There's a rule saying you can't step on my toes? Go me! Made it, ma!

If only I'd known about this rule before...

Without wanting to get into discussion about moderation decisions, I have to confess I find this claim odd. First, having been sinbinned a few times myself, I find it odd you blame someone else. Anytime I've been banned I've always accepted it was because of something I did, not because of something someone else did. Maybe I should see a therapist about self esteem issues.

More interesting is that only a day ago you were suggesting you didn't know why you were banned but hinting it was because of nefarious "legal reasons":

I understand that administers and moderators of this web site are done talking about doping. I respect that they need to protect their property against potential legal action. I can only assume that's why I was banned, because questions asked both publicly and privately have never been answered. That's ok. No one is obligated to answer my questions.

You really do seem to enjoy misleading people with false accusations.

 

[the delgados]

fmk-rol: I was banned for posting a reasonable response that included a bit of sarcasm. I was not given any warning; King Boonen lowered the boom. This is not the Cuban Missile Crisis and I have no reason nor desire to stir the pot. Like I've said in the past, I come here for kicks, including a desire to ask questions. I really don't care that I was banned, but I'm still allowed to ask questions why.
I'm not blaming anyone for being banned. The site admins can ban whomever they want. I could announce to the community that I dyed my hair with a hint of periwinkle and be banned as a result. There is nothing I could do about it. My point is they have a right to do what they want; that does not mean I'm blaming anyone. I'm just stating a fact.
The notion you find it odd that I was banned for a response I made in the thread you started suggests to me that I'm making schit up. I assure you I am not. More than one question posed privately to King Boonen was not only unanswered, it was ignored entirely.
I will not deny that you annoy me to no end, and I'm trying my best not to go into why. I think seasoned members might have a clue. But that is neither here nor there. I would buy you a beer if we met in person.
With that said, this has reached a point where I feel like I'm the annoying person who was invited to a party only to demand the host changes the music because it sucks.
I don't wish to be anywhere I'm not wanted, and that's ok. I'm not blaming anyone for nefarious practises. But yeah, the music sucks.
p.s. To the person who said I claimed Dowsett was doping simply by asking a question: You are incorrect. Do I suspect that doping is still rampant in the peloton? Absolutely, but that's based on history, not an individual rider. I should not have titled the thread Alex Dowsett, but I'm pretty sure he and his partner (who is a lawyer) are getting a kick out of this. No need to shed a tear for Dowsett.

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

The discussion of moderation needs to end here. We're not allowed to discuss it, as has been pointed out several times, but to be clear:

@the delgados was not banned for asking questions. This has been made very clear to them. We do not go into the reasons people are banned, because we're not allowed to discuss it but the fact this thread still exists should be more than enough evidence that this wasn't the case.

People are allowed to critique threads and their basic premise. This does not mean there is some concerted effort to destroy discussion.

No questions have been ignored, I was on holiday and as they have so gleefully pointed out in this thread, we're not paid to moderate so I wasn't even checking the forum, let alone PMs.

The question that they thought they were banned for has been answered. For clarity, here is the answer:

"...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."

I do not know how this could be answered more clearly. It is not my job, or the job of any other poster on these forums, to go and ask questions for you and report back with the answers. That's not deflection, it's common sense.

Yes, you are supposed to provide evidence (not proof) when making an accusation or when asked to by another poster. This is literally in the rules you have agreed to when posting on this forum and has been pointed out in this discussion. If you read through the threads in the clinic you will see we take a very liberal view of what constitutes evidence.

The fact that any new threads exist at all should also be enough of an answer as to whether the discussion of doping is allowed, but again to make it very clear, you can discuss doping on these forums. The clinic is the section of the forum I read and post in the most.

Cheers,

KB.

 

[King Boonen]

Sure I checked I even quoted the reference to the apparently new(er) rules by KB. The rules appear to have been changed. I suspect for legal reasons. Were the rules the same in say 2010? Nope - that’s why it’s an “amendment”.

There have been outrageous claims in the Clinic for many years - it’s normal. Pros learn to ignore them. Like any internet banter.

Mod hat on:

There have been several attempts, some before I was a mod, to impose some sort of level of evidence requirements in the clinic. This was due, in no small part, to some posters ignoring evidence that was presented and refuted their accusations and continuing to post the same thing without engaging. It's not just the clinic this has happened in by the way, but it is where the majority of these problems occur.

As far as I am aware, these rules were never put in place dues to legal threats, they were put in place to stop people ignoring evidence that did not fit their agenda.

The obvious issue with setting a level of evidence required is that it then requires mods to have the ability to assess that evidence, and that's not always the case depending on subject etc. This is why we are very liberal with what constitutes evidence, our main focus would be on making sure people don't ignore contradictory evidence when it is presented. This has always been the case since I was a mod and I'm pretty certain this was in the old rules although it may just have been an "unwritten rule", I can't remember.

From what I remember, it's an amendment because Future use the same rules across all of their different forums, and was added at our request when the rules were brought in line with their other platforms as we wanted it carried across. Because it's specific to this section it's not included in the main rules.

 

[the delgados]

Sandisfan!
Where are you when I need you?
Sandisfan? You there?