Creed article?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
yakhillclimb said:
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??"
There are characteristics in race cars that do not translate to the families mini van. Pro football and Baseball players do things that a LL or High School player shouldn't do because it transformers from hobby to job. Race horses are given substances and training regimes that would harm or kill old Bessy. Today's racers at the top end may have 200 race days in their bodies. With air travel, track and cyclocross gaining ground there is almost no off season just a strange sliding scale of when you are going to take time off depending on your skill set. Racing and racers at the pro level are being judged in some fuzzy system where hobbyist rules and views are the overlay on which the pros are judged. The UCI should address the real needs of pro bike racers and the care they need. Watching US sports it would be interesting to see if all elite athletes had short term contracts of 1 year...1 small knee injury would put you in desperation mode in an instant. Cyclists have been in desperation mode for decades. Medicines and techniques that appear crazy to the guy racing a crit on Sunday are everyday practice in pro circles. Just the number of needles used to dispense B12 and other B vitamins for pros it make a heroine den look sterile. Whoever wrote that the race organizers should be yet another level of policing..if the TDF had said that teams A,B are not going to be invited because of questionable practices and riders and 1 or more of the those teams would have included Armstrong there would have been a closed door meeting and the decision would have been changed simply for financial not moral reasons. Even w a big black cloud over him..he is pure media gold. If pro cyclists were judged by a jury of their peers instead of "regular" people this issue would be handled very differently.Not on morality on practicality
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Well after all the guessing of what he said and what he meant prove the writer/editor messed up the interview/article. I just can't believe they had such a interviewee, story and it never even dug much into it, it just skimmed the surface with some innuendo into what might be or happened.

Then the story seems hidden on the front page, with such a website with proven interest by its readers on doping (hence the clinic's post count), its muddled down away from view.

Major fail of a possibly great news worthy story and information! Who lived in Girona at that time? Hummm...

Don't worry Creed, we still follow you on the real interviews.

I guess its a good fiction fluff piece.
 
The first time the interviewee appears as a talking head in this article, he expresses a certain amount of discontent. We are told that's because it was early and he hadn't had a coffee and Benson's question was direct.

Direct enough to prompt a wall to go up. The interviewee might then have said off-the-record: I'm happy to answer questions about me, my career and my approach to this stuff, but I won't talk about anybody else directly. Like everyone does.

Or maybe he knows nothing, saw nothing and never discussed anything with anyone. He just didn't have a good time at the Disco.

These are the times we live in. Whatever he says isn't going to satisfy us. When the ground's actually empty, we dig a big hole to make the effort look worthwhile. On the rare occasion that there is buried treasure, we don't dig deep enough.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
L'arriviste said:
Benson's question was direct, direct enough to prompt a wall to go up. The interviewee might then have said off-the-record: I'm happy to answer questions about me, my career and my approach to this stuff, but I won't talk about anybody else directly.
Nah, if you read past "Creed Feed" interviews, you'll see he's not afraid of direct questions.

I agree w/ the previous poster: it was probably in interesting interview that got turned into a fluff piece.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
I think for many associated with pro cycling, and that includes the journalists who write both "thought-provoking" and "fluff" pieces, there is an infinite gray-scale on their feelings about doping. Very few are willing to go to one extreme (white) or another(black) to extol or condemn doping.

Why can't there be more Landises who say, I did it, and I was wrong, and cycling is wrong too?

Is blatant honesty that difficult? I've heard more truths spoken in a disintegrating marriage, than I've ever heard spoken in cycling, and I say this as a former competitive cyclist in the 70's who left the sport - AND left an equally dysfunctional marriage. JFC already!

When you compete for a living, for money, in public, with (sometimes) paying fans, is the goal to win honorably, or to win at any cost? Personally, I couldn't stomach that another cyclist, who was so obviously ramped-up on steroids, beating me by a tire's width at the finish line. It was so utterly devastating, I could no longer continue the sport competitively. I was clean, and it wasn't enough. It really f^ucks with your head.

For everyone else, my guess is eventually, just like in a bad marriage, the participants get tired of lying to themselves, speak their minds, crawl out from the wreckage, and begin anew. Or maybe they are liars and thieves their entire lives. Sad.

Or maybe journalists should write more editorials/opinion pieces. For once, maybe the reader would know where the journalist stands.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
joe_papp said:
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.
Joe,

I like Mike but I think he's being somewhat naive. The drugs work well. I know that and from your history, you know that too.

Your bringing up the death penalty, is useless hysterical hyperbole.

Cheating is immoral, period. Cheaters should not have their lives ruined, but they should be sanctioned.

The article requires one to read between the lines. It's apparent Discovery was a fraud, and that the cyclists on the team were required to meet a standard that necessitated cheating.

As for TH being a "nice" guy, I'll say this. It's readily apparent he cheated Mike Creed out of greater success.

I know Mike Creed is a fierce competitor. Fierce competitors have a hard time listening to bs. I'm surprised Mike hasn't busted TH in the mouth.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
tifosa said:
I think for many associated with pro cycling, and that includes the journalists who write both "thought-provoking" and "fluff" pieces, there is an infinite gray-scale on their feelings about doping. Very few are willing to go to one extreme (white) or another(black) to extol or condemn doping.

Why can't there be more Landises who say, I did it, and I was wrong, and cycling is wrong too?

Is blatant honesty that difficult? I've heard more truths spoken in a disintegrating marriage, than I've ever heard spoken in cycling, and I say this as a former competitive cyclist in the 70's who left the sport - AND left an equally dysfunctional marriage. JFC already!

When you compete for a living, for money, in public, with (sometimes) paying fans, is the goal to win honorably, or to win at any cost? Personally, I couldn't stomach that another cyclist, who was so obviously ramped-up on steroids, beating me by a tire's width at the finish line. It was so utterly devastating, I could no longer continue the sport competitively. I was clean, and it wasn't enough. It really f^ucks with your head.

For everyone else, my guess is eventually, just like in a bad marriage, the participants get tired of lying to themselves, speak their minds, crawl out from the wreckage, and begin anew. Or maybe they are liars and thieves their entire lives. Sad.

Or maybe journalists should write more editorials/opinion pieces. For once, maybe the reader would know where the journalist stands.

Fantastic post except for highlighted part. I believe that part is the only thing we have going for us.

Anyway, I read this after my previous post. I think you nailed it.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
joe_papp said:
Argh. I didn't bring it up. Did you not click-through to the link? Cozza is the one out there telling people dopers should be executed.
No, I didn't.

Sorry.

I've corresponded with Cozza and he seems to be of the opinion that no meaningful sanctions will be handed down to the biggest offenders. His tweets were out of frustration.

.STEVENCOZZA My statement has been taken out of context by @joepabike. Of course I don't want the death penalty for dopers it (cont) http://tl.gd/2tncmq
1:59 AM Aug 4th via UberTwitter


.STEVENCOZZA Ok 4 years for a doping violation yess but the death penalty. Come on ppl. This tweet comes back to haunt me (cont) http://tl.gd/2tmsup
1:16 AM Aug 4th via UberTwitter


) .STEVENCOZZA Hi everyone ago I tweeted that people who test positive should get the death penalty.I'm sorry people took me (cont) http://tl.gd/2tmp6u
1:06 AM Aug 4th via UberTwitter
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
I think it's great that Creed was forthcoming about his own experiences and his reasons for not doping. I'm sure there are a lot of riders who would dope but are afraid to do so, either for health reasons or fear of getting caught. And that's why better controls and education about the actual effects of doping are needed.

But let's stop pretending that attitude is somehow indicative of some sort of higher thought. His logic seems to imply that since "everyone at that level is doing it", it's not really cheating. This is the sort of high thought employed by my 8 year old nephew. "But dad, everyone else does it??".

Doping is cheating, pure and simple. There's really no moral ambiguity here, except that imposed by people who are trying to justify their own actions, beliefs, or the actions of others. Creeds comment about "someone being a moral guy" and still doping is a bit of a straw man on the one hand, and ridiculous on the other. TH may be a "moral guy" in many facets of his life, but he's also a cheater. Period. He may be a great guy. As Prentice Steffan said, nice guys like Tyler dope, a-holes like Armstrong dope. It doesn't change the fact that he's also a cheater. And, like Creed said, there are guys riding clean who are a-holes. I know, I have a couple who are my own teammates. However, their a-holeness doesn't change the fact that they've made a righteous decision to race clean. I can respect there decision, and still not want to hang out with them.

Danny Pate said it best: it's like stealing food from the grocery store or cutting the course. Let's stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS philosophizing, which is really just a thinly veiled cop-out.
 
May 20, 2010
37
0
0
131313 said:
I think it's great that Creed was forthcoming about his own experiences and his reasons for not doping. I'm sure there are a lot of riders who would dope but are afraid to do so, either for health reasons or fear of getting caught. And that's why better controls and education about the actual effects of doping are needed.

But let's stop pretending that attitude is somehow indicative of some sort of higher thought. His logic seems to imply that since "everyone at that level is doing it", it's not really cheating. This is the sort of high thought employed by my 8 year old nephew. "But dad, everyone else does it??".

Doping is cheating, pure and simple. There's really no moral ambiguity here, except that imposed by people who are trying to justify their own actions, beliefs, or the actions of others. Creeds comment about "someone being a moral guy" and still doping is a bit of a straw man on the one hand, and ridiculous on the other. TH may be a "moral guy" in many facets of his life, but he's also a cheater. Period. He may be a great guy. As Prentice Steffan said, nice guys like Tyler dope, a-holes like Armstrong dope. It doesn't change the fact that he's also a cheater. And, like Creed said, there are guys riding clean who are a-holes. I know, I have a couple who are my own teammates. However, their a-holeness doesn't change the fact that they've made a righteous decision to race clean. I can respect there decision, and still not want to hang out with them.

Danny Pate said it best: it's like stealing food from the grocery store or cutting the course. Let's stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS philosophizing, which is really just a thinly veiled cop-out.
Well said!
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
buckwheat said:
Joe,

I like Mike but I think he's being somewhat naive. The drugs work well. I know that and from your history, you know that too.

Your bringing up the death penalty, is useless hysterical hyperbole.

Cheating is immoral, period. Cheaters should not have their lives ruined, but they should be sanctioned.

The article requires one to read between the lines. It's apparent Discovery was a fraud, and that the cyclists on the team were required to meet a standard that necessitated cheating.

As for TH being a "nice" guy, I'll say this. It's readily apparent he cheated Mike Creed out of greater success.

I know Mike Creed is a fierce competitor. Fierce competitors have a hard time listening to bs. I'm surprised Mike hasn't busted TH in the mouth.
Mike Creed doesn't have to. When Tyler was caught with Havens' blood inside him do you not think she busted his chops. You guys do not know women.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
tifosa said:
I think for many associated with pro cycling, and that includes the journalists who write both "thought-provoking" and "fluff" pieces, there is an infinite gray-scale on their feelings about doping. Very few are willing to go to one extreme (white) or another(black) to extol or condemn doping.

Why can't there be more Landises who say, I did it, and I was wrong, and cycling is wrong too?

Is blatant honesty that difficult? I've heard more truths spoken in a disintegrating marriage, than I've ever heard spoken in cycling, and I say this as a former competitive cyclist in the 70's who left the sport - AND left an equally dysfunctional marriage. JFC already!

When you compete for a living, for money, in public, with (sometimes) paying fans, is the goal to win honorably, or to win at any cost? Personally, I couldn't stomach that another cyclist, who was so obviously ramped-up on steroids, beating me by a tire's width at the finish line. It was so utterly devastating, I could no longer continue the sport competitively. I was clean, and it wasn't enough. It really f^ucks with your head.

For everyone else, my guess is eventually, just like in a bad marriage, the participants get tired of lying to themselves, speak their minds, crawl out from the wreckage, and begin anew. Or maybe they are liars and thieves their entire lives. Sad.

Or maybe journalists should write more editorials/opinion pieces. For once, maybe the reader would know where the journalist stands.
i hope this doesn't come off as cherry picking your post but i think it's an important distinction. landis has certainly stated that he believes the sport of cycling (UCI) is wrong. from the comments i've heard he still seems to be saying he doesn't see his decision to use PEDs as wrong. essentially, he did what he had to do at the time. this rationalizing, similar in ways to what creed is doing, IS the problem.

the "selective pressure" or weeding out process for becoming a professional cyclist is having powerful efficient quadriceps and loose morals, or in creeds case some missing pieces to a completely functioning moral code. a lot of people with the same quadriceps and strong morals walk away never to be heard from again. when a top cyclist looks to either side of their handlebars they see what they think is normal when in fact it's a very select group, physically AND ethically. i truly believe that in their clouded view, PED use isn't cheating and that to them, no apology seems necessary. they are obviously wrong. the "everyone else is doing it" is an insult to people outside of that very select community. it sounds insincere or like they are lacking in basic principles. at the very least it is a personality flaw, but i'd rather not get into a discussion of locus of control and self-efficacy at the moment. ;)

i'd like to hear, from a confessed doper, "i'm sorry for bringing shame and embarrassment to myself, my supporters (friends/family/fans), the sport i love, and most importantly to the clean riders I CHEATED. furthermore, i'm prepared to continue apologizing privately for these actions for months and maybe even years to come to anyone who thinks they need to hear it." ...then we're getting somewhere
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
131313 said:
I think it's great that Creed was forthcoming about his own experiences and his reasons for not doping. I'm sure there are a lot of riders who would dope but are afraid to do so, either for health reasons or fear of getting caught. And that's why better controls and education about the actual effects of doping are needed.

But let's stop pretending that attitude is somehow indicative of some sort of higher thought. His logic seems to imply that since "everyone at that level is doing it", it's not really cheating. This is the sort of high thought employed by my 8 year old nephew. "But dad, everyone else does it??".

Doping is cheating, pure and simple. There's really no moral ambiguity here, except that imposed by people who are trying to justify their own actions, beliefs, or the actions of others. Creeds comment about "someone being a moral guy" and still doping is a bit of a straw man on the one hand, and ridiculous on the other. TH may be a "moral guy" in many facets of his life, but he's also a cheater. Period. He may be a great guy. As Prentice Steffan said, nice guys like Tyler dope, a-holes like Armstrong dope. It doesn't change the fact that he's also a cheater. And, like Creed said, there are guys riding clean who are a-holes. I know, I have a couple who are my own teammates. However, their a-holeness doesn't change the fact that they've made a righteous decision to race clean. I can respect there decision, and still not want to hang out with them.

Danny Pate said it best: it's like stealing food from the grocery store or cutting the course. Let's stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS philosophizing, which is really just a thinly veiled cop-out.
how can you compare someone stealing an apple at the grocery store (domestique to keep a job) to someone committing the biggest heist in history (7 TdFs and huge wealth)....

not the same but both cheating but still not the same.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Benotti69 said:
how can you compare someone stealing an apple at the grocery store (domestique to keep a job) to someone committing the biggest heist in history (7 TdFs and huge wealth)....

not the same but both cheating but still not the same.
my lance has never tested positiv.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
flicker said:
Mike Creed doesn't have to. When Tyler was caught with Havens' blood inside him do you not think she busted his chops. You guys do not know women.
Haven let pharmstrong bone her. I know women.

I was going to single out women, but most people, are terrible judges of character.

TH has very little character. When he takes that Olympic Gold medal bs off his twitter and website, I'll cut him a break.

Riis said he's not a worthy TdF winner. That's a start for me.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
buckwheat said:
Haven let pharmstrong bone her. I know women.

I was going to single out women, but most people, are terrible judges of character.

TH has very little character. When he takes that Olympic Gold medal bs off his twitter and website, I'll cut him a break.

Riis said he's not a worthy TdF winner. That's a start for me.
I agree Tyler is not a man of character. I do not know Haven but when her blood was caught inside her husband I guess she was POd.
As far as cheats, Riis knows. I will leave it there.
Lance boffing Haven? How does this story get started?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
A different moral focus, perhaps.

Any pro cyclist who wants to win will dope to the maximum extent permitted IN FACT. The only limiter to winning pros is the risk of getting caught or the risk of unacceptable medical consequences.

Rich pros who want to dope will get Ferrari-like care that will allow them to calibrate health risk to the desire to win. Poor pros will get Trabant-style care that will take them to the brink of catastrophe and beyond.

If the doping isn't policed, many riders will physically damage themselves. I don't give a damn about them (I'm including you, sludge-****), but I do care about myself.

It demeans me as a person to be a fan of a sport where I watch athletes hurt themselves and encourage their colleagues to hurt themselves merely for my own entertainment. I don't want to watch gladiators in the arena punishing themselves with dope. "What have we become, Crixus? ROMANS?"

Many riders (like many pro football players, for example) are incapable of looking out for their own health. Experience has shown that. The community of people who care about the sport need to protect those fools from themselves.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
lean said:
i hope this doesn't come off as cherry picking your post but i think it's an important distinction. landis has certainly stated that he believes the sport of cycling (UCI) is wrong. from the comments i've heard he still seems to be saying he doesn't see his decision to use PEDs as wrong. essentially, he did what he had to do at the time. this rationalizing, similar in ways to what creed is doing, IS the problem.

the "selective pressure" or weeding out process for becoming a professional cyclist is having powerful efficient quadriceps and loose morals, or in creeds case some missing pieces to a completely functioning moral code. a lot of people with the same quadriceps and strong morals walk away never to be heard from again. when a top cyclist looks to either side of their handlebars they see what they think is normal when in fact it's a very select group, physically AND ethically. i truly believe that in their clouded view, PED use isn't cheating and that to them, no apology seems necessary. they are obviously wrong. the "everyone else is doing it" is an insult to people outside of that very select community. it sounds insincere or like they are lacking in basic principles. at the very least it is a personality flaw, but i'd rather not get into a discussion of locus of control and self-efficacy at the moment. ;)

i'd like to hear, from a confessed doper, "i'm sorry for bringing shame and embarrassment to myself, my supporters (friends/family/fans), the sport i love, and most importantly to the clean riders I CHEATED. furthermore, i'm prepared to continue apologizing privately for these actions for months and maybe even years to come to anyone who thinks they need to hear it." ...then we're getting somewhere
What is the sanction for failing a moral test?


To the Blue - so after someone confesses you will accept their guilt as long as they proclaim they are really really sorry - yet Creed is slamed for not following your moral outlook - even though he did not 'cross that line'(or cheat as you call it).

This is the problem - my morals & your morals & Creeds and whoever else's are different. I am not knocking your morals, they are right.... for you.

What I took from the Creed piece was not to judge others - that those who do use PED's are not 'bad people' - or indeed that those who haven't are 'good'. We all make choices - and we do so according to our moral compass - and no-one elses.
 
MarkvW said:
Any pro cyclist who wants to win will dope to the maximum extent permitted IN FACT. The only limiter to winning pros is the risk of getting caught or the risk of unacceptable medical consequences.

Rich pros who want to dope will get Ferrari-like care that will allow them to calibrate health risk to the desire to win. Poor pros will get Trabant-style care that will take them to the brink of catastrophe and beyond.

If the doping isn't policed, many riders will physically damage themselves. I don't give a damn about them (I'm including you, sludge-****), but I do care about myself.

It demeans me as a person to be a fan of a sport where I watch athletes hurt themselves and encourage their colleagues to hurt themselves merely for my own entertainment. I don't want to watch gladiators in the arena punishing themselves with dope. "What have we become, Crixus? ROMANS?"

Many riders (like many pro football players, for example) are incapable of looking out for their own health. Experience has shown that. The community of people who care about the sport need to protect those fools from themselves.
Pro cycling (or pro sports in general, really) is anything but healthy, even when no doping is involved. Actually it's entirely possible that some forms of doping, properly supervised by a competent doctor, make cycling healthier than riding clean. This blurs the lines even more.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
What is the sanction for failing a moral test?
huh? who's sanctioning creed or suggesting any punishment whatsoever? whether he races clean or dirty he still has to make sense if he chooses to speak publicly and you should expect a bike racing forum to discuss such matters. i generally respect your posts dr m but this feels like grandstanding.

Dr. Maserati said:
To the Blue - so after someone confesses you will accept their guilt as long as they proclaim they are really really sorry - yet Creed is slamed for not following your moral outlook - even though he did not 'cross that line'(or cheat as you call it).
you're getting some wires crossed. i addressed the topic of confessions b/c there was a reference to landis. confession and apology should occur after someone tests positive, their names appear on blood bags, etc. they should be complete and to the point. that has nothing to do with creed. creed wasn't slammed by me but some other posters had strong words for him. take it up with the right poster.

Dr. Maserati said:
This is the problem - my morals & your morals & Creeds and whoever else's are different. I am not knocking your morals, they are right.... for you.
not really, PED use violates the rules of sport for obvious reasons. rationalizing it or ignoring it is a questionable practice.

Dr. Maserati said:
What I took from the Creed piece was not to judge others - that those who do use PED's are not 'bad people' - or indeed that those who haven't are 'good'. We all make choices - and we do so according to our moral compass - and no-one elses.
i agree that this is exactly what creed's wants us to take from it. i also think it's ok for us to examine his logic.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
flicker said:
When Tyler was caught with Havens' blood inside him do you not think she busted his chops. You guys do not know women.
All due respect, you have GOT to be kidding us w/ that post.

Have you never read/seen the Puerto evidence regarding Tyler?? The fax coversheet for payment request from Fuentes is addressed TO HAVEN. Fax'd to the front desk of a nearby hotel, to be picked up by the lovely and demure Mrs. Hamilton.

If you guys don't think the wives of the top pros are "in on the game", you have got to be joking. The man was injecting himself w/ all sorts of things including ESTROGEN, for frick's sake. You think a spouse isn't going to notice something like that?? :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS