Creed article?

[NashbarShorts]

Ima gonna post this and see how quickly it gets taken down...

(I posted a comment on the Pat McQuaid article....asked why does CN post McQuaid's drivel w/o even challenging some of the glaring lies -- err, I mean areas where Pat is at clear odds w/ reality. Wow, that posting got taken down lickety split. Oh well, I love CN, it is the one website I read EVERY DAY. But am I not allowed to ask a question occasionally??)

OK, wow groundbreaking Creed article. Hard-biting journalism, right? What a teaser: "Why I never doped and my future in the sport". After reading through it, all I got was a feeling of Zzzzzzzzz.

Anyways, on to my question. I speak fluent English, but I am having a LOT of trouble w/ the following prose as posted by Mr. Benson. Anybody else able to decipher this:

"Outside of racing the knitting circle that is Girona would suffocate, each beer indulged, making its way back to the team, each training ride cut short filtering through to team managers who would stare down riders over dinner."

Huh?

 

[barn yard]

translation

you are not supposed to go out drinking or cut your training rides short, the managers find out because it is a small place where everyone knows everything that goes on.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Thank, you perhaps it was Mr., Benson's odd usage, of commas making it difficult to, follow his train of thought.

Nevertheless, for an article that screamed "Here is how it really is, the dirty inside story!", that story delivered: NOTHING.
Doping? Not bad. Discovery dirty? Don't know. Career affected by decision to ride dope-free?? Not even discussed.

From reading the "Creed Feed" interviews on a different website, Creed seems like an outspoken guy. This article seemed heavily fluffed by the CN censorpolice.

 

[David Suro]

A good article that was well worth the time i took to read it.

Creed was a Disco rider and he spoke of how he came to make decisions. There was nothing more promised by the headline.

I always enjoy reading a personal story about an athlete.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

What exactly were you expecting him to say? Or Dan to ask?

Q. Did you ever specifically see doping?

A. Oh yeah, every team has a program, let me give you some names and photos I plan to share with investigators...

 

[Animal]

So why bother interviewing him? He has nothing to say. It was scroll wheel fodder.

 

[Greg Johnson]

I'm not sure why your other thread was taken down, but I can't imagine why this one would be.

Personally I think your comments highlight a problem: many people are more interested in gossip and hearsay than a truth.

Here you have a great article of a guy being honest about his own situation. He offers an insight into the mentality behind why some people do choose to dope, and highlights what stopped him from becoming one of those people.

Sure, he doesn't make explosive allegations...but frankly unless you've got evidence to support your allegations (be that physical or other witnesses willing to support the allegations) I'm not overly interested in hearing it.

I was genuinely shocked and surprised to learn of Creed's reasons not to dope. Not because there was anything earth shattering in there...but because of how little was stopped him. It was a great insight into the mind of someone in that position. I appreciate and thank him for offering that view for us to better understand.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[Martin318is]

(I posted a comment on the Pat McQuaid article....asked why does CN post McQuaid's drivel w/o even challenging some of the glaring lies -- err, I mean areas where Pat is at clear odds w/ reality. Wow, that posting got taken down lickety split.

you mean This post?

It seems to me that it is clearly there where you left it.

 

[Muriel]

An excellent article I thought. I enjoyed reading it.

I'd never heard of Michael Creed before but I liked what I read. There is so much that is quotable, the guy has a real honest, open and non judgemental perspective. You can only but admire that.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Interesting that another guy is on the record as saying what a nice moral guy Tyler H is.

Hopefully this will (have) come across to the Grand Jury

 

[Benotti69]

Interesting that another guy is on the record as saying what a nice moral guy Tyler H is.

Hopefully this will (have) come across to the Grand Jury

yeah and why not TH as a decent guy. But lots of people are like that then they enter the arena and change.

an example i personally know of. Roy Keane(Football-Man Utd), ended a guys career in revenge on the football/soccer pitch with a tackle a year after a guy accused him of faking an injury in a game, which Keane never did ever, fake injuries. keane makes quiet unannounced visits to sick and dying children in hospitals in Dublin and Cork(this i heard from the head of each hospital), keane being Irish and he pays for flights out of his own pocket and demands no fanfare, media, press release nothing. He has been called late at night after a child's dying wish to see their hero and he turns up asap even with a match the following day to visit these kids. Incredible stuff compared to the guy on the pitch.

the thing about the doping is most of these guys wouldn't do it if they thought they would get caught. Creed was lucky that his fear of getting caught was bigger than his desire for success. The regulations and controls need to be tighter, the bans longer and fines heavier to contribute to making the fear factor bigger than desire for success factor. Simple. UCI cant do that when it is corrupt. But a cleaner newer cycling federation could.

Time for a group of teams to put together new federation with some of the big races that wants clean cycling with big bans, fines etc...otherwise uci still gonna play the omerta game.

 

[yourwelcome]

The original interview might have been interesting in it's own right, but then Daniel Benson imposed a 'Graeme Fife in a Rapha catalogue' style all over it.

That creative/pretentious (take your pick) 'epic' style might point to what's bugging the OP. It does appear to hold out a promise of larger than life drama that the actual interview content can't back up. Cue boredom. I didn't last more than a third of the way through, that's for sure.

My $0.02, some people obviously love this stuff.

 

[yakhillclimb]

I don't get his quote "So for me it wasn’t a moral thing. If I did it I wasn’t going to be a bad person."

How is cheating not a moral thing? You are screwing clean guys out of a lot of money, and somehow that doesn't make you a bad person?

Or is he suggesting that just because everyone else is doing it, he wouldn't feel guilty?

Could someone explain what he means there?

 

[Nick C.]

I believe he means in effect you are just a person that did a bad thing, assuming he thinks it is a bad thing but that doing so is not the full measure of himself as a person.

 

[fatandfast]

So why bother interviewing him? He has nothing to say. It was scroll wheel fodder.

He speaks for 1000's of racers and 10's of thousands of race fans. If you do Landis math and say I saw bikes being sold and I concluded that the proceeds went for a doping program without any facts it makes you an even bigger jerk than originally thought after blaming everybody from Jack Daniels to Jesus for juicing to a tour win. Creed says what he knows from his point of view. All these has beens that have deputized themselves for the good of all cycling are idiots. Creed stayed on point and spoke to issues and people he has knowledge of instead of a broad brush BS. When every ex or soon to be ex racer who doesn't name a rider or 2 that doped when speaking on the subject is classified as useless the discussion is sunk. I for 1 am not willing to trash the whole US cycling scene on Landis's command.

 

[yakhillclimb]

I believe he means in effect you are just a person that did a bad thing, assuming he thinks it is a bad thing but that doing so is not the full measure of himself as a person.

Not to get philosophical, but I'd love to know how you separate your actions as a person from your identity.

 

[joe_papp]

What he really meant

I don't get his quote "So for me it wasn’t a moral thing. If I did it I wasn’t going to be a bad person."

How is cheating not a moral thing? You are screwing clean guys out of a lot of money, and somehow that doesn't make you a bad person?

Or is he suggesting that just because everyone else is doing it, he wouldn't feel guilty?

Could someone explain what he means there?

He's saying something much more profound than what previous posters have posited - and that is that for him, and by extension, many of his colleagues, doping is not something that they view through a moral or ethical lens. And by extension, when someone tests positive, he is not interested in excoriating them for supposed moral-failings. Rather, he sees doping primarily as something to be avoided because of fear of medical complications, and accepts the fact that his decision not to dope came not from any high-minded moral principles, but rather, simply from being scared.

Cyclingnews heavily edited the original interview to create that article, and Mike would have been better off just doing it with NY Velocity again, whereby they transcribe everything that's said.

Anyway, what's most noteworthy to me, and what I thought more people would pick-up on, was the reference to Creed's being benched for two months without explanation by Team Type 1 management. For those of you who follow Pappillon, you also know that Creed was wrongly accused of being a bitter insider leaking embarrassing details of the poor leadership within that organization that saw at least five staff members quit the team in frustration. Despite the fact that it was impossible for Creed to be the leaker, because I was in conversation with him on one line, and effectively receiving messages from the leaker on another, the team's mgmt won't even answer Mike's queries. I'm not entirely surprised by that, however, as my experiences interacting with Phil have seen him reply only when it was convenient and not when the rules of decorum suggested it.

Creed's not a doper and never has been, though he's got balls for trying to suggest we drop the fake moral outrage, so to speak. That didn't translate in the article, and he should have gone with a different format that would have allowed us to read Creed's comments Verbatim (he's an engaging interview, for sure, and a funny guy to be around). But regardless, being honest about how the peloton has not - in general - viewed doping as a moral problem and still doesn't (although some PC riders are too scared to admit that right now, so they tow the line and call for the application of the death penalty for cases of doping) shouldn't be reason for him to be shunned by his employer.

 

[Polish]

I found the article enlightening in several ways.

I was at that 2005 race, although I was on the Taylor Street Climb. And I remember being puzzled a bit by Mr Creed's Flyer. It was known at that time that Creed was being let go by Disco, and I viewed Creed's suicide attack in such a race of attrition as sour grapes or showboating or something along those lines. And his DNF seemed to reinforcedmy suspicion...

In addition, Creed was riding a Trek with about 60mm's of headset spacers - an ugly setup on a Pro Bike - I thought that might have been an passive insult launched at the Army of LiveStrong charity riders....

Anywho, after reading the article, I have much respect for Mr Creed. And those spacers were for his sore back lol.

Have a couple questions about the article:

1) It says "he looks at those who bemoan dopers with a passive disdain."
Yikes, would he be considered a troll if he posted in the clinic?

2) He says "“If I was paid that kind of salary, I’d be that vocal too about doping,” he says about one prominent rider who often speaks in the war against doping." Yikes, who is he talking about?

 

[lean mean &green]

i liked the article but i didn't have such lofty expectations of it going in. i think it was a bore if you were looking for something else.

what came across to me loud and clear was the catch 22 for a clean rider. an inverted omerta if you will. creed is a guy who truly loves racing bikes. if he starts mouthing off or preaching too much he will soon have burned bridges and may not be able to race bikes professionally the way he wants. he'd be labeled difficult for speaking controversially because although his clean talent is exceptional, against doped athletes his talent is only marginal. he quickly slides down the hierarchy as more competitive teams can hire similar talent without the headache.

i also think that he loves bike racing irrationally and may be justifying alot of behaviors, some of his own but mostly of others, so that he isn't overcome with frustration or worse, the depression he talks so openly about.

in the end i like creed. i would love for him to be more specific, although i realize why he isn't.

 

[Polish]

He's saying something much more profound than what previous posters have posited - and that is that for him, and by extension, many of his colleagues, doping is not something that they view through a moral or ethical lens. And by extension, when someone tests positive, he is not interested in excoriating them for supposed moral-failings. Rather, he sees doping primarily as something to be avoided because of fear of medical complications, and accepts the fact that his decision not to dope came not from any high-minded moral principles, but rather, simply from being scared.
.

I disagree, Joe.

The article seems to indicate that Creed was "afraid" of being caught.
Nowhere in the article did I sense he was "scared" for medical reasons.
Seems he was more concerned with disappointing his dad....

And although Creed flatly states it was not a moral thing, I think he was just being modest....

“My dad works in a bike shop. I love cycling, I don’t want to be kicked out of it. It was never a moral thing,”

 

[erader]

I disagree, Joe.

The article seems to indicate that Creed was "afraid" of being caught.
Nowhere in the article did I sense he was "scared" for medical reasons.
Seems he was more concerned with disappointing his dad....

And although Creed flatly states it was not a moral thing, I think he was just being modest....

“My dad works in a bike shop. I love cycling, I don’t want to be kicked out of it. It was never a moral thing,”

that's what i got out of the story. that plus creed is a bozo.

erader

 

[lean mean &green]

I disagree, Joe.

The article seems to indicate that Creed was "afraid" of being caught.
Nowhere in the article did I sense he was "scared" for medical reasons.
Seems he was more concerned with disappointing his dad....

And although Creed flatly states it was not a moral thing, I think he was just being modest....

“My dad works in a bike shop. I love cycling, I don’t want to be kicked out of it. It was never a moral thing,”

for once i agree with you, it comes off mostly as fear of shame and embarrassment but i'd guess he's also afraid of health complications too.

 

[ultimobici]

I don't get his quote "So for me it wasn’t a moral thing. If I did it I wasn’t going to be a bad person."

How is cheating not a moral thing? You are screwing clean guys out of a lot of money, and somehow that doesn't make you a bad person?

Or is he suggesting that just because everyone else is doing it, he wouldn't feel guilty?

Could someone explain what he means there?

Read the rest of the quote.

Away from the Discovery spotlight and looking at his entire career, there were always opportunities. “Of course there was temptation and huge temptation. I had a lot personally because I don’t see doping as a moral thing. I don’t see taking drugs as a moral flaw.
“That sounds weird but I’ve seen guys who have really good morals do some bad stuff in cycling. And guys that don’t dope do some really bad things in life. So for me it wasn’t a moral thing. If I did it I wasn’t going to be a bad person.”
Creed is perhaps unique, or at the very least openly honest in his reasons for not doping, admitting that while the lines of right and wrong are often blurred, his own concerns were far clearer. “It was just me being afraid,” he says.
“I was really scared. There were a lot of people being caught. Maybe if I’d sat down with a doctor who was willing to give me whatever, maybe it would have calmed me down. But I never took that initial step because eventually someone is going to know. Even if I just ask the question but don’t go through with it I’ve already crossed the line. I didn’t want that story.”

He's not saying it's not wrong, rather that his decision was not morals based. I especially like his view at the end.

“My dad works in a bike shop. I love cycling, I don’t want to be kicked out of it. It was never a moral thing,” he reiterates. “I think someone like Tyler Hamilton is a really moral guy, anyone would be lucky to have him as a neighbour. There are probably a lot of guys out there that don’t take EPO but you don’t want them as a neighbour.

His comment regarding TH and neighbours is interesting too.

 

[yakhillclimb]

Read the rest of the quote.
He's not saying it's not wrong, rather that his decision was not morals based. I especially like his view at the end.


His comment regarding TH and neighbours is interesting too.

If he knows that cheating is wrong (as you state above), how can his decision not be morally based?
His decision to dope screws other riders in the peloton that are not doing it. How can you say that is not wrong? Or that his decision is not a "moral one?"

That's like saying "I refuse to make decision on that matter" Well actually, you just made a decision and that is not to decide.

 

[ultimobici]

If he knows that cheating is wrong (as you state above), how can his decision not be morally based?
His decision to dope screws other riders in the peloton that are not doing it. How can you say that is not wrong? Or that his decision is not a "moral one?"

That's like saying "I refuse to make decision on that matter" Well actually, you just made a decision and that is not to decide.

From the comfort of our cosy lives we pontificate on the morality of doping in sport and cycling in particular.
But what we very often miss is that it is not a cut and dried decision. How many riders have made it to the professional ranks only to have to chose between charging up to compete, ride at their own natural level and be spat out or just to walk away from the whole thing?
I knew a guy who at 18 had managed to get an offer to ride in Italy in the mid 90's. He went away full of excitement and expectation, he was on his way to being a pro. A month later he came home as he didn't want to "get on a program". He stopped riding as it had crushed any love he had for the sport that he'd dedicated himself to from before he was a teenager. Destroyed is the word that described him on his return home.
Creed seems to be saying that his decision was not made on moral grounds rather that he based his decision on the fear of being caught. He didn't even ask about it as he knew it would come back and bite him in the backside down the line.

Find me a driver who keeps to the speed limit and claims that they do because of the morality of breaking the law and I'll call them a liar. It's because they don't want to get caught and the attendant consequences. It's wrong to speed but the decision is not made on moral grounds.