Democratising Sport, can sites like the clinic push change?

Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
It occurs to me given the number of forumites here who very clearly have a great deal of knowledge could the kind of "outing" that forums like this can achieve become the kind of presure to change the paradigm of doping culture.
It seems some have built up a big database of links to evidence on many doping accusations and joined a lot of possible dots and its geting very hard to hide.
I`m no journalist but this clinic would be first place to look each day for possible leads or ideas.
Any thoughts peeps?
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
I don't think so. To the English speaking msm Lance is the only real story (Contador- we always knew the Spainards were dirty!). After the whole Lance thing dies off (conviction or not) cycling will be smaller and the people who follow it will be disappointed doping goes on but still love it regardless.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Oh please. Don't delude yourselves. There are 9/11 'truther' websites where they say the same thing.

While you all focus on a very likely true fact (Armstrong doped), any decent comment gets lost in daft speculation, conspiracy theories, plenty of 2+2=5 sums, lots of people scrambling to show how much they hate Armstrong and abusive behaviour to any dissenters. Information is filtered as truth or spin according whether it fits the Lance & UCI = evil template.

There are some occasional interesting and revealing posts on here, but most of the time it's garbage. You may think you are the keepers of the truth, but elsewhere you are seen as obsessive fundamentalists.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Agreed with the comments so far but I did say "sports" . Cycling might be small beer but what ( if any ) has the effect of simialer forums been on say Base Ball or American Football.
Any at all?
Just curios .
I am one of those peeps that see`s a huge potential in the net as a communication tool for possitive change and organisation of protest etc.
 
Informational? Sure. A good source for accurate info? Uh...

Well, you can find some serious information here. It's a real conduit. But redacting this info for any sort of media publication or review would be implausible. In a sense we're like investigative dirt reporters in the pre-computer era. The scribes on the phone making calls, visiting witnesses, comparing notes. Only it's all spilled out onto one giant desk, left for the editor to sift through; to figure out what's really true, and what's not. And no editor does that, or lets articles publish like that.

In theory though the writers for SI or WSJ, etc. could "waste" their time here like we do, and find information they won't easily find elsewhere. But figuring out from there what's true and what's not is still the real task they'd have at hand. They could end up missing key stories and leads in the process.

How the Clinic can push change is that it gives a very centralized hotbed for people who seek to be heard, and find like minded individuals to share information.
 
Jan 18, 2011
113
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Oh please. Don't delude yourselves. There are 9/11 'truther' websites where they say the same thing.

While you all focus on a very likely true fact (Armstrong doped), any decent comment gets lost in daft speculation, conspiracy theories, plenty of 2+2=5 sums, lots of people scrambling to show how much they hate Armstrong and abusive behaviour to any dissenters. Information is filtered as truth or spin according whether it fits the Lance & UCI = evil template.

There are some occasional interesting and revealing posts on here, but most of the time it's garbage. You may think you are the keepers of the truth, but elsewhere you are seen as obsessive fundamentalists.
100% Agree

This is an Internet forum. Talking.....I mean Shouting about doping gets as crazy as discussing politics. It's mostly speculation and personal feelings taken as fact...(on both sides on the coin)
 
Mambo95 said:
Oh please. Don't delude yourselves. There are 9/11 'truther' websites where they say the same thing.

While you all focus on a very likely true fact (Armstrong doped), any decent comment gets lost in daft speculation, conspiracy theories, plenty of 2+2=5 sums, lots of people scrambling to show how much they hate Armstrong and abusive behaviour to any dissenters. Information is filtered as truth or spin according whether it fits the Lance & UCI = evil template.

There are some occasional interesting and revealing posts on here, but most of the time it's garbage. You may think you are the keepers of the truth, but elsewhere you are seen as obsessive fundamentalists.
I don't understand a few things.
1. Why don't you call out the conspiracy theories? It would improve the discourse.
2. If it's so awful, then why visit? Seriously. If it's so awful, why don't you do something to make it better?
3. You've got a very strong opinion about doping being discussed. Why?
4. What's the alternative? Consent to doping your children? Or, maybe like Eddie B, Carmichael and Wenzel, you compel the kids to take the drugs or go home. It hasn't gotten any better since then. Really. It hasn't.

At the SI level, parties can afford to go to court for a really, really long time. The SI organization had some doping facts straight and laid a few out knowing full well Team Pharmstrong can keep SI in court for years. No litigation from Pharmstrong, just personal attacks. Remarkably, the same facts have been retold here for years. It is pretty difficult to write this forum off as conspiracy theorists. Go ahead and do it though. Not visiting would be a good alternative. That way the conspiracy theorists can't muddle your perfect world view.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Don't underestimate...

Hmmmm,

I understand the points that others have posted on this thread so far, but I want to carefully consider the wording of the actual title, Can sites like the clinic push change?

I think so. I think The Clinic and sites like The Clinic (although I'm not sure anything compares) can have, at the very least, a gentle nudging of perception. Is that "pushing change?" Sure, I think it is.

Of course I don't want to fall into the trap of self-important delusion over the direct effects of what goes on here, but I do believe the word gets out. I just noticed that the SI thread, which was only started less than a week ago now, already has over 61,000 views! Someone is paying attention.

When McQuaid openly refers to "bloggers" and being "accused" by them, Who do you think he's referring to? Again, addressing the OP, there are other sites and sources, but it all does have a cumulative effect. I have to believe that he hears, at least bits, of what goes on in here and other places.

When Bob Roll, in his latest rant of ridiculousness mentions, "Well, in recent weeks, the rumor mill has been grinding away..." The Clinic is most certainly part of that mill.

Lance, who so famously, and obsessively, surveys all that is said about him online, has to be touched, is some small way, by the whispers that go on here and other sites "like" this one.

It keeps the pressure on; and I think that's hugely important. Is there more clutter than clairvoyance, more fiction than fact? Of course! But if I can sort it out to a reasonable degree, then why not some intrepid reporter or author's assistant? Again, not to over inflate any sense of importance, but the fact remains, as I recently pointed out to one persistent troll: There are members of this forum who were actually named, specifically, in the Sports Illustrated article. These are people with direct knowledge of events who's very actions have, and will continue to have, an effect on the outcome of those events around which The Clinic often orbits.

So in light of that, Darryl, I would have to say YES to your OP. :)
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
100% Agree

This is an Internet forum. Talking.....I mean Shouting about doping gets as crazy as discussing politics. It's mostly speculation and personal feelings taken as fact...(on both sides on the coin)
totally disagree about the speculation & personal feelings part. While people have definite personal leanings on a variety of subjects, there is plenty of factual links that are posted. Also what is nice to see is how easily bad journalism is exposed. You can sometimes see almost identical write ups with no credit given to the original. What is worse is when someone decides to just "change a few words" and "interpret" the story. Case in point all the meat stories after AC where Clen was supposedly used in a systemic matter to change the muscle to fat ratio. No one seemed to entertain the thought that it's presence might have been used to treat sick animals not alter the growth of healthy ones. Someone decided there was only one possible answer that fit their reality and so they went with that one instead offering any other plausible explanation.
Also we saw in VN a "breaking" story of doped livestock in Spain. It was from a very small news website based on an island in the Canaries not carried by any of the wire services. So how did VN come to find this story? Not by prowling the internet, it took days for it to come up on an internet search engines, AFTER all the cycling websites had run their own stories.
So there is a good chance the link to the story was given to VN by a member of AC's spin team to get some more plausability to his story.
The only problem is Livestock can also mean horses, pigs, etc and this story only had to do with drugging racehorses to open their bronchial passages before a race.
So from the internet forums we get not just personal opinions but insight into how the media does its job. ie some stories are planted for PR purposes.
There is alot of useful information available here if you want to keep an open mind
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
100% Agree

This is an Internet forum. Talking.....I mean Shouting about doping gets as crazy as discussing politics. It's mostly speculation and personal feelings taken as fact...(on both sides on the coin)
i dont think so
 
Well, a small percentage of the posters on here have made me change some of my beliefs, so I cant be the only one...

The only problem is that for every rational, factual and lucid person on here (regardless of which side of the fence they sit on), there are two who are not.

Unfortunately that makes it easy for Some of the good stuff to be lost with the rest of the garbage.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I don't understand a few things.
1. Why don't you call out the conspiracy theories? It would improve the discourse.
2. If it's so awful, then why visit? Seriously. If it's so awful, why don't you do something to make it better?
3. You've got a very strong opinion about doping being discussed. Why?
4. What's the alternative? Consent to doping your children? Or, maybe like Eddie B, Carmichael and Wenzel, you compel the kids to take the drugs or go home. It hasn't gotten any better since then. Really. It hasn't.
To answer your points.

1. I occasionally do call them out, when I can be bothered (this is my second choice cycling forum). Check out my previous postings. I've even been called a Armstrong Fanboy for challenging people (even though I'm in little doubt that he doped). I'm lucky, others have been told 'look forward to your ban'

2. Why do I come here? Two reasons. 1. As I said, there are sometimes interesting and revealing posts. 2. I like conspiracy theories (in all walks of life). I believe next to none of them, but they entertain me.

3. Why do you think I have a strong opinion? I rarely have a strong opinion about anything. Of course doping should be discussed, but in a more sensible and reasoned manner. Unfortunately this forum is a place of extremely polarised opinions. No-one's covering the middle ground. It's much like US politics in recent months. No-one is saying that politics shouldn't be discussed, just not in the way it currently is.

4. What's the alternative? Alternative to what? The alternative to obsessing about Armstrong, and perceiving his every move to be pure evil, is to take a step back and take all evidence at it's own merits and not seeing something and trying to fit it into a pre-conceived position.
You've suggested that just because I don't buy into the Armstrong hatred (I see him no different than any other doper), I'm going down Maindy Flyers and injecting 12 year olds with EPO. Don't you think this is somewhat of an over-reaction on your part, thereby perfectly illustrating the reactionary lunacy of some posters here.

Many posters on here seem to think they have to join in the hatred for Armstrong (above any other doper) to be accepted (and they're probably right. I don't need acceptance from people I don't know (although I remember Mr Webster - just).
There is, however, a self-satisfied smug feel to many posters who pat themselves on the back for any anti-LA post regardless of how attached it is to common sense. The OP and many others think they are making a difference. Don't delude yourselves, you're just non-entity posters on a website (as am I).
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Mambo95 said:
The OP and many others think they are making a difference. Don't delude yourselves, you're just non-entity posters on a website (as am I).
This OP asked the question can forums like this make a diffarence in sport.
I never claimed they did though it`s clear from the responce theres a very mixed view on this.
Personaly I think they have potential to illuminate peoples understanding and shift views but very likly dont reach a great number of people and only rarely anyone with any clout.Mention of blogs and forums by some senior figures in the sport also sugests there not being tottaly ignored
I also accept that you have to wade through a lot of opinion and very subjective bias to find the stuff of merit.

But stuff of merit there very clearly is and many of the links provided are of excellent quality.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
While i dont think the clinic can change things at all, it can maybe sway things a little, as long as the likes of vaughters pop in from time to time and at least get a feel for how fans feel.

That said, there is an immense amount of information here, and some of it has seen its first "popular" public airing on here (thinking of some of the more recent documents that have been posted). Its also a great way of pooling resources, someone posts a document and a question, other members dig around and find more out. The levi ban being a case in point.

Where i think the clinic fails is that it is so Lance orientated. Its almost like people beleive that once lance goes down everything will be alright.. it wont be :/

i do think however if one of the major publications needed some information, they could do much worse than to ask here. Maybe they already have :D
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
This OP asked the question can forums like this make a diffarence in sport.
I never claimed they did though it`s clear from the responce theres a very mixed view on this.
Personaly I think they have potential to illuminate peoples understanding and shift views but very likly dont reach a great number of people and only rarely anyone with any clout.Mention of blogs and forums by some senior figures in the sport also sugests there not being tottaly ignored
I also accept that you have to wade through a lot of opinion and very subjective bias to find the stuff of merit.

But stuff of merit there very clearly is and many of the links provided are of excellent quality.
OK, you were just asking the question. Fair enough.

However, no-one here is really changing anyone's views. All that they are doing is changing 'believers' into 'fundamentalists', to use a religious allegory.

The same links get posted on other cycling forums, without the BS surrounding them.
 
Mambo95 said:
To answer your points.

1. I occasionally do call them out, when I can be bothered (this is my second choice cycling forum). Check out my previous postings. I've even been called a Armstrong Fanboy for challenging people (even though I'm in little doubt that he doped). I'm lucky, others have been told 'look forward to your ban'

2. Why do I come here? Two reasons. 1. As I said, there are sometimes interesting and revealing posts. 2. I like conspiracy theories (in all walks of life). I believe next to none of them, but they entertain me.

3. Why do you think I have a strong opinion? I rarely have a strong opinion about anything. Of course doping should be discussed, but in a more sensible and reasoned manner. Unfortunately this forum is a place of extremely polarised opinions. No-one's covering the middle ground. It's much like US politics in recent months. No-one is saying that politics shouldn't be discussed, just not in the way it currently is.

4. What's the alternative? Alternative to what? The alternative to obsessing about Armstrong, and perceiving his every move to be pure evil, is to take a step back and take all evidence at it's own merits and not seeing something and trying to fit it into a pre-conceived position.
You've suggested that just because I don't buy into the Armstrong hatred (I see him no different than any other doper), I'm going down Maindy Flyers and injecting 12 year olds with EPO. Don't you think this is somewhat of an over-reaction on your part, thereby perfectly illustrating the reactionary lunacy of some posters here.

Many posters on here seem to think they have to join in the hatred for Armstrong (above any other doper) to be accepted (and they're probably right. I don't need acceptance from people I don't know (although I remember Mr Webster - just).
There is, however, a self-satisfied smug feel to many posters who pat themselves on the back for any anti-LA post regardless of how attached it is to common sense. The OP and many others think they are making a difference. Don't delude yourselves, you're just non-entity posters on a website (as am I).
Good post.
Being impartial or seeing both sides of the Armstrong or doping argument around here is the equivalent of herasy.
I find myself pushing forward views that are more pro Armstrong than I normally would, just to provide some balance to the place.
There are some very well informed people on here but some of their work is undone by the lack of perspective on the subject.

There is a real pack mentality here, with many posters just happy to be surrounded by others who approve and validate their opinion.

Personally, If I were Anti Armstrong, I would have been bored of the validation long ago.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Thins like this on the forum, about tainted meat, I am interested in, I hate seeing Clentador go down but when I saw on the forum that 43 percent of the meat samples tested were positive for clen in Hermesillo Mexico, it awakened me, not in a good way but making me aware.

No one seemed to entertain the thought that it's presence might have been used to treat sick animals not alter the growth of healthy ones. Someone decided there was only one possible answer that fit their reality and so they went with that one instead offering any other plausible explanation.

I know the reason the forum exists is to raise awarness among fans which is good. Also it gives cyclingnews gleans material from to do interviews, stories.

I know for sure that happens and cyclingnews has a huge following, even if Joe fan doesn't have time to read the opinions, ranting and raving etc. here.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Mambo95 said:
OK, you were just asking the question. Fair enough.

However, no-one here is really changing anyone's views. All that they are doing is changing 'believers' into 'fundamentalists', to use a religious allegory.

The same links get posted on other cycling forums, without the BS surrounding them.
Well this posters views HAVE been changed. Im now far, far more anti doping than I was and now realise how naive I was with regards the effectivness of doping.
All forums have varing degree`s of BS , there kinda the aquivelent of getting together in the pub and chewing the cud..some are serious, some just take the micky, some couldnt care less, some enjoy antagonising etc.
Ya takes ya pick which camp (s) ya wanna be in.;)
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
andy1234 said:
Good post.
Being impartial or seeing both sides of the Armstrong or doping argument around here is the equivalent of herasy.
I find myself pushing forward views that are more pro Armstrong than I normally would, just to provide some balance to the place.
There are some very well informed people on here but some of their work is undone by the lack of perspective on the subject.

There is a real pack mentality here, with many posters just happy to be surrounded by others who approve and validate their opinion.

Personally, If I were Anti Armstrong, I would have been bored of the validation long ago.
Yup (+ wot Mambo65 said)
I'm considered a fully paid up member of the Hate Squad on the other site I hang out on, but on here I can't help but find the self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping pretty nauseating. FWIW if some posters were prepared to swap 'I know' for 'I think' then I'd be a lot happier. I get very irritated when people are prepared to present speculative opinion as incontrovertible fact and then argue the toss when challenged. Saying 'they're all doped, because I know they must be' is not an adequate argument...

That said, I've seen some quite staggering research and information presented on this forum, not to mention the depth of knowledge that some posters have. That's worth the admission charge. What the internet does is provide a place where this knowledge can live and spread.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
I think forums like this one CAN serve as a vauable tool, IF used properly.

Here, we enjoy a great many posters representing a broad spectrum of ability and experience, from casual Sunday riders to former domestic pros, right up to former Pro Tour team members.

This experience expands the information available, and provides anecdotal insight into the sport and how it works from the inside out. The ability of some to reach out into the industry and the peloton also contributes to this knowledge.

Obviously, nothing here should be just rubber stamped and believed verbatim, but a savvy journalist would do well to stop by and peruse some of the discussions that do occur here. If something of interest or value is seen, the responsible journalist can PM the poster and ask further questions, ask for sources, etc. and decide for themselves if the information is of merit.

Also, not only is this a sampling of at least a portion of the cross section of cycling fans, but the dialog may allow the journalist to see something in a different light, a "gee I hadn't thought about it that way" moment.

Just my two cents.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,927
0
0
It all helps.

I am sure many of us have had people who know we have an interest in cycling ask about Lance/cycling and doping. There is a genuine interest when you can explain and provide some background.

"...there has always been doping in cycling...it really went off the rails but it seems to be getting better... it would be remarkable indeed if Lance achieved what he did without doping... most of the people around him were doping... true he never tested positive...technically... but retro testing of his samples tells a different story... etc"

I think this kind of exchange does leave people better informed and at least open's their eyes a bit. It's not about 'trashing' Lance or cycling but it is about helping people make up their own minds with a bit more data.

The clinic is an online version of this kind of conversation. At least when people aren't just doing the "he said she said" thing.

So yes I think it can change people's perceptions.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Oh please. Don't delude yourselves. There are 9/11 'truther' websites where they say the same thing.

While you all focus on a very likely true fact (Armstrong doped), any decent comment gets lost in daft speculation, conspiracy theories, plenty of 2+2=5 sums, lots of people scrambling to show how much they hate Armstrong and abusive behaviour to any dissenters. Information is filtered as truth or spin according whether it fits the Lance & UCI = evil template.

There are some occasional interesting and revealing posts on here, but most of the time it's garbage. You may think you are the keepers of the truth, but elsewhere you are seen as obsessive fundamentalists.
What a rant - not everything here revolves around Armstrong.

I hear the conspiracy therory comment quite a lot - but I rarely see any of those actually take apart that 'theory' (should be easy, no?).

Also someone else mentioned that the forum has no real world value outside cycling - hmmm, is that why they just call it cyclingnews.

Simply put - Cyclingnews is probably the most looked at english text website and after the update to the site 18ish months ago a lot of the best content is in the forum, not because it is always correct but because it leads to debate and looking at the overall picture.

You can be sure that many involved in the sport visit to gauge public opinion and to see if ther latest lie is believed.
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I hear the conspiracy therory comment quite a lot - but I rarely see any of those actually take apart that 'theory' (should be easy, no?).
No. Arguing against the theory merely confirms that you're part of the cover-up. Conspiracy theories have their own in-built protection mechanisms. You *can't* prove them wrong.
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
The other part is that you tend to dismiss the other person as irrational or stupid so you can't be bothered arguing with them ;)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Invicituz The Clinic 0
Similar threads
Doping Quotes - All Sports

ASK THE COMMUNITY