Creed article?

[MacRoadie]

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.

"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

Geddy Lee...

 

[powerste]

Geddy Lee...

Drummer Neil Peart has been Rush's primary lyricist since joining the band in 1974. He wrote the lyrics to Fly by Night.

 

[ultimobici]

Drummer Neil Peart has been Rush's primary lyricist since joining the band in 1974. He wrote the lyrics to Fly by Night.

And Freewill from which the lyric is taken.

 

[yakhillclimb]

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.

I get that Creed acted more out of fear of getting caught than by abiding by some higher principal that we like to call "morality." I'm just saying that he's screwing his fellow racers, and that is wrong whether he wants to be aware of it or not. I'm not pontificating....I used to race mountain bikes professionally and hung out with Creed on many occasion. I understand how hard it is to make the decision, but ultimately you are wronging your fellow riders...and if that's not a moral decision I don't know what is.

 

[ultimobici]

I get that Creed acted more out of fear of getting caught than by abiding by some higher principal that we like to call "morality." I'm just saying that he's screwing his fellow racers, and that is wrong whether he wants to be aware of it or not. I'm not pontificating....I used to race mountain bikes professionally and hung out with Creed on many occasion. I understand how hard it is to make the decision, but ultimately you are wronging your fellow riders...and if that's not a moral decision I don't know what is.

As his decision was to NOT dope he hasn't robbed anyone has he?

 

[powerste]

And Freewill from which the lyric is taken.

Thanks! I cited his first album with them instead of the tune in question. D'oh!

 

[yakhillclimb]

As his decision was to NOT dope he hasn't robbed anyone has he?

No, but he's saying in effect if he could rob someone and get away with it, he would. That's scary - esp if you are his wife.

 

[MacRoadie]

Drummer Neil Peart has been Rush's primary lyricist since joining the band in 1974. He wrote the lyrics to Fly by Night.

Very true. I "quoted" Lee because he actually "said" it, if you will. I'm pretty sure even the music was written as a collaberation between Lee and Lifeson.

 

[ultimobici]

No, but he's saying in effect if he could rob someone and get away with it, he would. That's scary - esp if you are his wife.

No different to a large part of society.

IE very often people play by the rules for fear of being caught, not because it's wrong. I'm not talking about overt acts like actual theft, rather those transgressions that are perceived to be "victimless". There is always a victim of any crime, but if it it's not immediately apparent then it's easier to give in to temptation.

 

[powerste]

Very true. I "quoted" Lee because he actually "said" it, if you will. I'm pretty sure even the music was written as a collaberation between Lee and Lifeson.

Yup, I think those two wrote pretty much all of their music together and Peart pretty much wrote all of their lyrics. Not 100% of the time, but pretty close AFAIK.

 

[Berzin]

Creed's philosophy isn't "refreshing". It's bogus.

I remember a while ago how Bradley Wiggins was getting all this publicity in the usual cycling mags CycleSport and ProCycling (who always seem to feature the same rider on the same month) for being "clean".

This isn't something you can wear around our neck like a charm if you don't produce.

Just ask David Millar.

Now that Wiggins has been exposed as a rider who doesn't have what it takes to win the Tour EVER, who really cares about his fervent anti-doping stance?

Why should we applaud riders for doing what they're supposed to do? Are the expectations that low that we have to cheer a rider/team that goes on about NOT taking drugs?

 

[Chuffy]

Why should we applaud riders for doing what they're supposed to do? Are the expectations that low that we have to cheer a rider/team that goes on about NOT taking drugs?

Yes they are and yes we should. If we just shrug at any attempt to change the culture then we may as well admit that we're not that bothered.

 

[MacRoadie]

Creed's philosophy isn't "refreshing". It's bogus.

I agree. "Refreshing" would be: "I didn't dope because it is cheating, it is illegal, and I personally believe it is wrong".

 

[carl spackler]

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.

In moral philosophy, or ethics, generally speaking there are two schools of thought:

1. Moral decisions are made by virtue of the consequences of your actions, are the outcomes good or bad? Consequentialist theory.

2. Moral decisions are made from an absolute or intrinsic sense of right and wrong. "Lying is always wrong,, etc..etc.." Absolutist.

When Creed says that his decision was not a moral one, I think that he is speaking from an absolutist viewpoint. His decision not to dope wasn't based upon it being right or wrong in any intrinsic sense. If he was assured that he would not have gotten caught, he would have doped. But because he was afraid of the consequences - be they medical or punitive, he chose not to. He believes that in order for a decision to be a moral one, the consequences must not be a factor, but rather the absolute principles. He was thinking merely about the consequences, making his actions amoral.

I think, as others have pointed out, this keeps him from putting himself above his peers who have also chosen to be amoral. I saw his comment about people speaking out as a clear reference to the actions of Millar et al, who do so for financial gain and not any real absolutist sense of morality. Something which Creed says he would do put in the same situation.

 

[MacRoadie]

I think, as others have pointed out, this keeps him from putting himself above his peers who have also chosen to be amoral. I saw his comment about people speaking out as a clear reference to the actions of Millar et al, who do so for financial gain and not any real absolutist sense of morality. Something which Creed says he would do put in the same situation.

So, he would have no problem cheating his peers through doping, and would have done so with assurance he wouldn't be caught.

He draws the line, however, at putting himself above those same peers in an absolutist sense of morality.

Convenient rationalization.

 

[joe_papp]

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

erader

I don't discount your interpretation, though I'll stick by mine, as I had the advantage of talking w/ the subject both before and after the interview. Mike never told me that he was dissuaded from doping b/c he was scared of getting caught and would have done it had that not been a factor. He's always emphasized the fear of having an adverse reaction or becoming very ill, or dying. But you might very well have had a similar conversation with him in which he emphasized fear of discovery, so - I don't discount your interpretation.

But when I lamented the job cyclingnews.com did in translating the dialogue into a written piece, it was with an understanding born from similar insight. For those who missed it, I think Mike should have agreed to the interview under the condition that it would be transcribed into a Q&A and not written up as it appeared.

Anyway, if anyone cares enough, just find Mike on Twitter and ask him and report back!

Cheers.

 

[NashbarShorts]

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.

My point exactly when I started this thread... "heavy editing", censorship, not so different.

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.

Therein lies the problem, Joe. I can undertand as pros, you and MC don't view doping as wrong, merely "problematic"...(will I get caught?) However, you've gotta realized from OUR SIDE -- fans who love the sport, and want to believe in what we're watching, we DO see it as WRONG. It's inherently unjust, phony, fake, and goes AGAINST the spirit of competition. Can you argue otherwise??

So yes, perhaps when somebody is pinched and a Saint Millar comes out and makes a comment, you can call it a fake morality play. However, for most fans, it is not fake sentiment. It's the riders who exist in an alternate reality where sense of "right and wrong" gets put in limbo.

 

[joe_papp]

My point exactly when I started this thread... "heavy editing", censorship, not so different.



Therein lies the problem, Joe. I can undertand as pros, you and MC don't view doping as wrong, merely "problematic"...(will I get caught?) However, you've gotta realized from OUR SIDE -- fans who love the sport, and want to believe in what we're watching, we DO see it as WRONG. It's inherently unjust, phony, fake, and goes AGAINST the spirit of competition. Can you argue otherwise??

So yes, perhaps when somebody is pinched and a Saint Millar comes out and makes a comment, you can call it a fake morality play. However, for most fans, it is not fake sentiment. It's the riders who exist in an alternate reality where sense of "right and wrong" gets put in limbo.

Whoa, why are you equating my views on the morality of doping w/ Creed's when I've never said that?

 

[Cooper]

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.

A good analogy of what Creed was trying to say. To many riders past, present and future, doping is the equivalent of one of us driving over the speed limit. Quite common for us to do except for a small minority who fear the consequences of getting caught or that it is dangerous. And frankly, no one thinks any less of others who routinely speeds. In the peleton, it is probably a similar feeling when it comes to doping.

Would you want a jerk as a neighborhood who never drives above the speed limit or the nicest guy in the world who consistently drives 80 mph in a 65 mph?

 

[Berzin]

Yes they are and yes we should. If we just shrug at any attempt to change the culture then we may as well admit that we're not that bothered.

Here is the point-Bradley Wiggins IS NOT changing the culture by flying the flag of cleanliness. He's in no position to make such a resounding statement if he doesn't win.

His message sinks the second he can't produce out on the road.

The REAL message needs to be sent by team management, race organizers and the UCI. They are the ones who hold the power to change the culture, and as we've seen from the statements made by Fat Pat McQuaid, the UCI are loathe to do so.

Here is a message with resonance-no Radio Shack team at the Vuelta a España.

For whatever reason they were left off. I have no idea why after winning the team prize at the Tour. It could very well just be politics at play, but guys like Bruyneel need to be marginalized out of existence. However that happens or for whatever reason, in the end it's a good move on the part of the Vuelta organizers.

that sends a stronger message than someone crying out "I'm clean!!!" and getting dropped and never contending at the one race he was focusing on all year.

 

[Chuffy]

Here is the point-Bradley Wiggins IS NOT changing the culture by flying the flag of cleanliness. He's in no position to make such a resounding statement if he doesn't win.

His message sinks the second he can't produce out on the road.

No, I don’t agree. Riders need to know that doping isn’t something tacitly accepted and comments from other, well respected, peers help to create that pressure. As a fan, don’t you want riders at all levels to be loud and clear about riding clean? So Wiggy didn’t win the Tour, do you honestly think that makes him some journeyman nobody making up the numbers?

The REAL message needs to be sent by team management, race organizers and the UCI. They are the ones who hold the power to change the culture, and as we've seen from the statements made by Fat Pat McQuaid, the UCI are loathe to do so.

I want to hear it from riders too, at all levels. Pinning it all on the structure is a cop out, one that riders are well aware off. Having said that, I was cheering when AFLD and ASO seemed to be going to war and winningagainst both the dopers and the UCI a few years ago. I also like and respect teams like Garmin who have put their money where their mouth is.

Here is a message with resonance-no Radio Shack team at the Vuelta a España.

For whatever reason they were left off. I have no idea why after winning the team prize at the Tour. It could very well just be politics at play, but guys like Bruyneel need to be marginalized out of existence. However that happens or for whatever reason, in the end it's a good move on the part of the Vuelta organizers.

that sends a stronger message than someone crying out "I'm clean!!!" and getting dropped and never contending at the one race he was focusing on all year.

Vuelta teams were announced in June, so your point about them winning the team prize at the Tour is irrelevant. But other than that, yes, if teams with doping violations (or a history of being suspect) were consistently not invited to the big events then that would send a very strong message.

 

[yakhillclimb]

A good analogy of what Creed was trying to say. To many riders past, present and future, doping is the equivalent of one of us driving over the speed limit. Quite common for us to do except for a small minority who fear the consequences of getting caught or that it is dangerous. And frankly, no one thinks any less of others who routinely speeds. In the peleton, it is probably a similar feeling when it comes to doping.

Would you want a jerk as a neighborhood who never drives above the speed limit or the nicest guy in the world who consistently drives 80 mph in a 65 mph?

IMAO we drive over the speed limit because not only do we think we can get away with it, but also because we don't think we are going to crash and hurt someone. When people dope, they have to inherently know you are screwing those who don't dope.

If Creed does make decisions based on consequences, why should character matter to him - when he says "There are dopers who are good people??"

 

[NashbarShorts]

A good analogy of what Creed was trying to say. To many riders, doping is the equivalent of one of us driving over the speed limit.

Actually it's a LOUSY analogy and really just more of a rationalizaton. If you speed, it does not affect me in any way -- unless you flip your vehicle and take me out or close the highway. We are COMMUTERS.

Even at the recreational racing level, if you dope, it may effect me (my enjoyment goes down as I get dropped), but it has no real FINANCIAL impact on me.

However, at the professional level these guys are using cycling as a way to provide for themselves and their families. A juiced rider is artificially enhanced uses his results to boost his EARNING POWER. At the European ProTour level, this is big money. A rider who is able to advance will soon be making $200, 300, $500K.

Compare that to Creed's story. Apparently at the U23 level, he had world-class talent. Unwilliling to dope at the pro level (Discovery), he was being paid $50K.... Don't those numbers speak for themselves??

Even guys like DannyPate, non-doper, finally males it to the ProTour level. I have no idea what he makes but I'm sure it's 1/3rd to 1/5th of what he could achieve if he went on a program. Look at Wiggo, even supposing he's clean. He pulls a strong Tour finish one year, the next year there's a bidding war over his services and Sky drops 1M on him.

So no, commuters speeding on their way to work while I enjoy my coffee in the slow lane...not a comparable analogy!

 

[NashbarShorts]

Whoa, why are you equating my views on the morality of doping w/ Creed's when I've never said that?

I'm not...and besides, apparently that's a moot point b/c according to Mr. Creed, it's not even a "moral" issue.

But it does seem both you guys feel the decision to juice or not is merely a personal one, and not one that can be viewed through "a moralistic lens". Thus, my comment that pro racing is an alternate reality where cheating is no longer considered cheating. Sort of the concept of "honor among thieves".

Thus of us who don't race at that level don't have clouded judgement in that area. We still realize cheating is cheating, no matter if someone is a "nice guy", or not. Simple as that really.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

IMAO we drive over the speed limit because not only do we think we can get away with it, but also because we don't think we are going to crash and hurt someone. When people dope, they have to inherently know you are screwing those who don't dope.

If Creed does make decisions based on consequences, why should character matter to him - when he says "There are dopers who are good people??"

First point here is that Creed did not dope - nor did he consider it "Even if I just ask the question but don’t go through with it I’ve already crossed the line.".

As for it being a moral decision - what are morals? Is there a standard - by that I mean is everyones the same?

What Creed said is

“And I don’t want that to be the cop out. Oh that guy took drugs, he’s an awful person, because you’re just being lazy if you think that. Some people just need to hang out for a couple of beats and figure out why a rider’s doing it and why he’s denying it and how embarrassed he must be. It’s all complicated. It’s just that much easier to judge people.”

For most Pro riders most of their personal ambition evaporates when they sign their first contract.
Other priorities kick in - it is no longer a hobby, it's what pays their rent and if they do their job well hopefully their mortgage.
Like any business there is a need to perform - so you have a responsibility not only to yourself, but to your team and the other employees.

When the system -that is Pro cycling - turns a blind eye to doping it is only the few that have a robust moral conviction that will not dope - and Creed should be applauded for that, but it does not mean he (or we) should berate those that did not hold 'our' values - that should be held for those that allow the system thrive.