Armstrong discussions

[Barrus]

Although there is a Lance poster you all still don't have to discuss him, his habits and what he could've done

This discussion began in another thread and is one of the cases in which I reacted to people posting about Armstrong and starting a discussion about Armstrong in a thread that had only a very small and frankly inconsequential link with Armstrong. In this thread you can discuss this policy of mine and whether you are upset about it. The other choice of thread title could've been, the popular uprising against Barrus

 

[jimmypop]

Although there is a Lance poster you all still don't have to discuss him, his habits and what he could've done

Doesn't that poster - hung in a dope distributor's garage in Europe, far away from the middle-aged American fanboys - help to galvanize the notion that Armstrong is the poster boy for contemporary PED abuse in cycling?

 

[nevada]

Doesn't that poster - hung in a dope distributor's garage in Europe, far away from the middle-aged American fanboys - help to galvanize the notion that Armstrong is the poster boy for contemporary PED abuse in cycling?

or maybe he just liked him. Many of the riders in the area would have ridden with him at some point.

 

[Barrus]

Doesn't that poster - hung in a dope distributor's garage in Europe, far away from the middle-aged American fanboys - help to galvanize the notion that Armstrong is the poster boy for contemporary PED abuse in cycling?

A large part of the members on here, myself included have had more than enough of every other thread turning into a thread discussing Armstrong, there are more than enough threads about that. In this case there is only a poster, nothing which really links him to this case, and though it may be funny to mention it, the thread does not need to become a thread which discusses him

 

[D-Queued]

A large part of the members on here, myself included have had more than enough of every other thread turning into a thread discussing Armstrong, there are more than enough threads about that. In this case there is only a poster, nothing which really links him to this case, and though it may be funny to mention it, the thread does not need to become a thread which discusses him

Thanks for the edits? Please don't blame this poster for hanging a poster of poster-boy. Don't blame this poster for the attention and notariety of poster-boy.

Can we try and look beyond the obvious, to see the obvious?

I wasn't trying to re-direct the dialog. I was merely adding to it. And, there is appropriate information to add.

So you are suggesting that there is and can be no connection?

The connection with a certain location has been of interest for a long time.

The fact that said location had people advertising rental accomodation for cyclists which were 'near well-known training routes' is but one of many serious implications.

You do know what 'training routes' is code for, don't you?

Looks like one of these 'training routes' was just revealed. Looks like nothing was lost in that translation.

There was a LOT of merchandise in that bust. and a LOT of different merchandise. How many riders do you think could be supported by that particular training route?

Do you think there is only one training route? The quantity of merchandise suggests considerable demand. Where there is a lot of demand, supply has an odd way of catching up to it.

Could be a rather large community, don't you think?

Pretty darn big secret.

Must be lots and lots of experimentation on local climbs. Lots of kidding about what was in your wheaties this morning. Lots of story swapping. Lots of gauging yourself against other riders. Lots of joking about forgetting your vitamins.

So, if you were a temporary resident, at the top of the sport, but were getting regularly spanked by local 'well-trained' riders, wouldn't that make your curious?

If you were a temporary resident, at the top of the sport, wouldn't some of the local 'well-trained' riders possibly try and curry favor by telling you about the local traditions?

Is this location just some fluke?

Is said location really a 'hot bed' or not? What other 'training routes' are nearby? What other local 'assistance' is available?

How did it get there? When? Why there, and not somewhere else?

As Ullrich, said, those of you who still can't put one and one together...

Dave.

P.S. Please note that this posthas NOTHING to do with HWMNBM

 

[Barrus]

I have had it, you want to do this openly lets do it openly.

you posted this:

If only Lance had exposed a doping ring in Girona while he lived there.

Then we could be certain that he didn't dope.

Odd that he didn't think about that.

Had nothing to with this and was only another dig at Armstrong, which ensured that the discussion continued about Armstrong, as was the case with Polish his post. It had nothing else just this dig at Armstrong. We have more than enough threads about Armstrong and quite frankly I don't want him in other threads

And also your edit is bull, seeing as it is directly directed at me and the fact that I edited that part out of your post

 

[hrotha]

For the record, I mentioned the Armstrong poster because I thought it was funny, I didn't expect anyone to say much about it, if anything I imagined someone might crack a joke as a PS in an otherwise on-topic post.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It is virtually impossible to have a discussion about doping in cycling without cross referencing other cyclists/dopers. Because of his profile a certain (large) percentage of those references may include HWSNBN. I think that mod intervention should be limited to after the thread train has gone off the rails and not always as a preemptive strike after one or two posts. Posts on a forum are part of a conversation amoungst a diverse population and don't need to be treated like they are legal testimony. IMHO

 

[Barrus]

It is virtually impossible to have a discussion about doping in cycling without cross referencing other cyclists/dopers. Because of his profile a certain (large) percentage of those references may include HWSNBN. I think that mod intervention should be limited to after the thread train has gone off the rails and not always as a preemptive strike after one or two posts. Posts on a forum are part of a conversation amoungst a diverse population and don't need to be treated like they are legal testimony. IMHO

The problem however, for me at least, is the amount of threads that have gone off the rails due to this. At a certain point in the topic it was impossible to discuss anything in the clinic where not a few posters came in and took the entire discussion towards a discussion about Armstrong and the thread was completely devoid of the original purpose and killed all other debate an either needed to be closed or dozens and dozens of posts needed to be deleted. And all the times it are the same tired old discussions about the same things between the same people which get on the nerve of a lot of other people

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sometimes there is reason to bring up the big A - for comparative exercises, for example. I don't agree with an absolute zero-tolerance policy, but I do agree with the closing of threads after they are derailed into Armstrong threads/temp-banning of people who keep bringing everything around to Armstrong, because that is one of the most difficult things to get around on this board.

 

[Barrus]

Sometimes there is reason to bring up the big A - for comparative exercises, for example. I don't agree with an absolute zero-tolerance policy, but I do agree with the closing of threads after they are derailed into Armstrong threads/temp-banning of people who keep bringing everything around to Armstrong, because that is one of the most difficult things to get around on this board.

Okay, but how about just one or a few sentences, which are not being comparative, but just are designed to create a debate about armstrong, such as D-Qeued statements and this statement by someone in the Contador thread:

You left off option #3 Hire Emile Vrijman to write you a get out of jail free card.

Or this in the start of a thread:

A little light relief for those who believe LA invented doping

These are all statements clearly intended to rile up the fanboys on either side and make them discuss Armstrong, whether he doped, what his role was etc.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Okay, but how about just one or a few sentences, which are not being comparative, but just are designed to create a debate about armstrong, such as D-Qeued statements and this statement by someone in the Contador thread:

You left off option #3 Hire Emile Vrijman to write you a get out of jail free card.

No, that statement by me was designed as a wry commentary on how the UCI protects a certain group of high profile stars, of which I believe Contador is a part.

 

[Barrus]

No, that statement by me was designed as a wry commentary on how the UCI protects a certain group of high profile stars, of which I believe Contador is a part.

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of where and how it was posted. But was a clear dig at Armstrong and a clear invitation to start discussing the Vrijman report

 

[pedaling squares]

Barrus, I support your crackdown on the LA/FL/GL sidebars as they quickly take threads off the rails. I tire of the endless debates about the same topics and it's nice to have threads about other things. But he is a big part of cycling's history and its present so his name will inevitably come up without being an attempt to disrupt. It's a tricky thing you are attempting: move in quickly, people get upset; move too slowly, the thread is a mess and people get upset. Sounds like fun. I read a lot of posts asking the mods to do what you are doing so hopefully those people will show you some support or offer suggestions about how to do it. It is never going to meet everybody's needs. Too much to ask.

Posts on a forum are part of a conversation amoungst a diverse population ...

Well stated. Conversations ebb and flow and the topics change along the way. The forum has specific threads for specific topics so we're more strict than when we're sitting around the campfire, but I don't take exception to the introduction of outside topics as long as these sidebars return within a reasonable time to the main topic. Unfortunately, LA can be like gas on a fire...

Sometimes there is reason to bring up the big A - for comparative exercises, for example. I don't agree with an absolute zero-tolerance policy, but I do agree with the closing of threads after they are derailed into Armstrong threads/temp-banning of people who keep bringing everything around to Armstrong, because that is one of the most difficult things to get around on this board.

This sums up my opinion although I would like to see that some gentle, then not-so-gentle, warnings continue to be given before the thread is closed or people get suspended.

 

[jimmypop]

The same cognitive dissonance that says all doping-related discussion must be relegated to a separate forum also now dictates that doping-related discussions must not mention Armstrong unless some convoluted, subjective metric justifies it. Brilliant!

The sport is plagued with doping - doping largely driven back into mainstream professional cycling after 1998 by Armstrong. But let's not talk about any of that, it's just too difficult to listen to!

Pretty soon, we'll run out of holes in the sand to stick our heads in.

 

[python]

Barrus, I support your crackdown on the LA/FL/GL sidebars as they quickly take threads off the rails. I tire of the endless debates about the same topics and it's nice to have threads about other things. But he is a big part of cycling's history and its present so his name will inevitably come up without being an attempt to disrupt. It's a tricky thing you are attempting: move in quickly, people get upset; move too slowly, the thread is a mess and people get upset. Sounds like fun. I read a lot of posts asking the mods to do what you are doing so hopefully those people will show you some support or offer suggestions about how to do it. It is never going to meet everybody's needs. Too much to ask.


Well stated. Conversations ebb and flow and the topics change along the way. The forum has specific threads for specific topics so we're more strict than when we're sitting around the campfire, but I don't take exception to the introduction of outside topics as long as these sidebars return within a reasonable time to the main topic. Unfortunately, LA can be like gas on a fire...


This sums up my opinion although I would like to see that some gentle, then not-so-gentle, warnings continue to be given before the thread is closed or people get suspended.

you said a lot of good things about ppl who said a lot of good things. and u all said it well.

one thing you missed but perhaps implied is that barrus is a moderator representing us all, not just the most vocal members.

for one, if you paid any attention, neither barrus nor myself nor dozens upon dozens of other posters are armstrong fans. quite the opposite. but we're tired of every thread resorting to the same old well traveled arguments over and over. a final note: i did not read the latest thread nor have i ever reported it, but i've seen enough before to stop contributing any thoughtful posts to any armstrong threads.

my point is very simple. we owe barrus a thank you for stepping in and representing the majority tired of the forum's winter angle.

regards, python.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This sums up my opinion although I would like to see that some gentle, then not-so-gentle, warnings continue to be given before the thread is closed or people get suspended.

To be fair I think this is what Barrus is actually trying to do. The threat of the nuclear option carried in his sig is something that you'd actually be reluctant to do.

Armstrong will inevitably come up in conversations not originally about him, just as any conversation will move around multiple topics. If a poster is a repeat offender in this respect, or the shift to Armstrong is something of a non-sequitur, then the nuclear option should be more readily available than if something informative and discursive happens to mention Armstrong or Landis as part of discussion.

Maybe we could have a play with the word filter, so that it replaces Lance's name with some random domestique or something like that. That would sure confuse a lot of people though, when they start posting here and wonder why we're all going on incessantly about (picking random names here) Paolo Fornaciari, Werner Riebenbauer or Henk Vogels.

 

[Cal_Joe]

The problem however, for me at least, is the amount of threads that have gone off the rails due to this. At a certain point in the topic it was impossible to discuss anything in the clinic where not a few posters came in and took the entire discussion towards a discussion about Armstrong and the thread was completely devoid of the original purpose and killed all other debate an either needed to be closed or dozens and dozens of posts needed to be deleted. And all the times it are the same tired old discussions about the same things between the same people which get on the nerve of a lot of other people

+1 - whole hearted support for your efforts. This effort, and the stickys that Francois put up for FL, LA, and AC have resulted in a Clinic that can be read without sifting through way too many posts that truly are "the same tired old discussions about the same things between the same people".

 

[D-Queued]

Thank you Barrus:

1. For not deleting my posts (albeit, you moved them w/out notice)

2. For not banning me (most appreciated)

3. For explaining your concerns

Can I ask, however, why you did not resort to common, understood policy? In other words, if you have an issue with what I post, then why not PM me?

Same goes for the other contributors to this thread who are tired of Armstrong. I do read my messages.

Moreover, you began an open debate, based on new and subjective criteria, about what content you like and do not like. New rules? No notice?

No, I am not going to go all Nazi here with the whatchamacallit law, but you are changing the rules and stifling open debate.

Now, if you want to divert the discussion into another thread so we can cover alleged Girona linkages, training routes, and other USPS/Carmichael/Armstrong related linkages. Please do. This is a topic that I am interested in. I am aware of at least one other member, not commented, that is also interested in that discussion as he and I have discussed it before (and he is an ex-UCI chaperone, unlike me who is a nobody).

And, it is a topic where there is information (e.g. adverts for flats close to 'training routes') that has not been much discussed.

Perhaps Texpat, for example, can corroborate - or dismiss as innuendo - some of this.

There are a few truisms here:

1. Old behavior is the best clue to new behavior. If the UCI under Hein resorted to Vrijman like tactics in the past to protect key riders, then any decent behaviorist would predict the same in the future.

2. Those who ignore history are designed to repeat it.

3. Follow the leader is alive and well.

It is not my fault that Armstrong is the poster-child for doping.

If it were not Armstrong, cycling sport history teaches that it would be someone else. Because it already was.

And, unless we point out these linkages, then we only encourage the next Armstrong to get away with it - because some people don't like to hear about it any more.

Finally:

As noted, why weren't George, or Tyler, or Floyd, screaming bloody murder about how they got spanked every time they went for a light pedal into the hills around Girona?

Why did Carmichael recommend Girona?

We have NEW evidence.

What does that new evidence link to?

It was always difficult (for me) to see obvious linkage between Lance and OP (other than as a way for everyone else to try and catch up). But, this is Girona.

Don't you think it is striking that this is Girona?

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

I have had it, you want to do this openly lets do it openly.

you posted this:


Had nothing to with this and was only another dig at Armstrong, which ensured that the discussion continued about Armstrong, as was the case with Polish his post. It had nothing else just this dig at Armstrong. We have more than enough threads about Armstrong and quite frankly I don't want him in other threads

And also your edit is bull, seeing as it is directly directed at me and the fact that I edited that part out of your post

The edit was not directed at you, but generally.

To the extent that it was prompted by your edit, I sincerely apologize and can understand why you have called that out here.

Dave.

 

[scribe]

Armstrong invented doping in Girona? It's rather obvious that this is not even debateable as there is no proof or no clear connection.

It's just another excuse to break new ground in a sparkling new thread for a very tired debate.

 

[scribe]

It is not my fault that Armstrong is the poster-child for doping.

Ricco has applied for the position. He has a VERY solid resume.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Armstrong invented doping in Girona? It's rather obvious that this is not even debateable as there is no proof or no clear connection.

It's just another excuse to break new ground in a sparkling new thread for a very tired debate.

I really don't like to see anybody dig this deep of a hole for themselves.

 

[scribe]

I really don't like to see anybody dig this deep of a hole for themselves.

See? No one to fight in the tired Armstrong threads. Gotta create this nonsense in the unrelated topics to dig up some fresh meat.

 

[BroDeal]

This is classic. In a thread about moderating posts about Armstrong in threads where they don't belong, Scribe starts an Armstrong doping argument. Nice.

BTW, grouping that Vrijman crack in with the other examples was way overreaching.