While I understand libel and the damage that could be done to someone's reputation, I feel that this 'rule' seems more about protecting Cyclingnews.com from lawsuits and loss of funding than in the morality of free speech.
The main reason no drug accusations should be posted is that it is morally wrong. It could hurt an innocent rider, his friends, his family, his team and sponsors. What company wants to sponsor a rider that 90% of cycling fans feel is cheating under the radar with some illegal doping procedure?
Please, protect the riders by erasing these type of posts. I have repeatedly stated (though not always published) that I do not see the need to allow fan opinions of riders regarding doping, both across the board( 'everyone is blood doping, using epo, etc'.) and on a personal level. A number of past posts have included opinions about Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich, Hamilton, etc.
The 'rules' seem to indicate that those who are found guilty or admit to doping can be discusssed at length; but not any of the others. Does this mean discussion is allowable about Hamilton and Landis and Kohl because they were found guilty by the courts governing cycling; but not individuals like Ullrich and Basso since they neither admitted to using doping products nor were found guilty of having doping products in their blood or urine?
Where should the line be drawn in your opinion? Should doping accusations be reported and removed from this forum?
Also, does anyone agree with Daniel's last statement:"Defamatory statements about dead people are not actionable so where a cyclist has drugged himself to death then go ahead and say what you want."
Shouldn't the reputation of a rider matter even if he is dead? I understand there to be a vast difference in riders who died due to race doping, like Tom Simpson, and hurling accusations against riders who are no longer living and able to defend themselves. I would prefer that 'no doping allegations' be across the board. I think cycling and cyclingnews forum will be better for it. I applaud the efforts to prevent this forum from being a public accusation against the riders it supports.
The main reason no drug accusations should be posted is that it is morally wrong. It could hurt an innocent rider, his friends, his family, his team and sponsors. What company wants to sponsor a rider that 90% of cycling fans feel is cheating under the radar with some illegal doping procedure?
Please, protect the riders by erasing these type of posts. I have repeatedly stated (though not always published) that I do not see the need to allow fan opinions of riders regarding doping, both across the board( 'everyone is blood doping, using epo, etc'.) and on a personal level. A number of past posts have included opinions about Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich, Hamilton, etc.
The 'rules' seem to indicate that those who are found guilty or admit to doping can be discusssed at length; but not any of the others. Does this mean discussion is allowable about Hamilton and Landis and Kohl because they were found guilty by the courts governing cycling; but not individuals like Ullrich and Basso since they neither admitted to using doping products nor were found guilty of having doping products in their blood or urine?
Where should the line be drawn in your opinion? Should doping accusations be reported and removed from this forum?
Also, does anyone agree with Daniel's last statement:"Defamatory statements about dead people are not actionable so where a cyclist has drugged himself to death then go ahead and say what you want."
Shouldn't the reputation of a rider matter even if he is dead? I understand there to be a vast difference in riders who died due to race doping, like Tom Simpson, and hurling accusations against riders who are no longer living and able to defend themselves. I would prefer that 'no doping allegations' be across the board. I think cycling and cyclingnews forum will be better for it. I applaud the efforts to prevent this forum from being a public accusation against the riders it supports.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram