Doping, nationalism, culture

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I asked LMG for a plan, and thanked him when he provided a list, with condescending tone. He distinctly gave the impression to me that that was the end of the matter. Job done. In my next post, not "whining" by the way, I asked if he could address the issue of the cultural contradictions Hoberman identified as being so troublesome.

Hoberman's insights have led him to be described by his interviewer as seeming somewhat jaded.

Given the enormity of the task at hand, perhaps I could be forgiven for the descriptor "bleak". You seem to see it as enormous problem, worth breaking my balls over. It's a pain in the ****, so forgive my apparent "snippiness".

The interviewer mention jaded - and then continues.....

This matrix of social attitudes, national interests, and corporate dollars creates a stew that is the subject of Hoberman’s scholarly interest, and he can come across as jaded. But he is not hopeless about the possibility of creating a clean playing field for pro cycling. That change, according to Hoberman, starts with a complete reshaping of the sport’s governing federations and it’s a process he is personally keen to contribute to as a source of historical and cultural expertise about doping.

You only asked LMG after you had missed key points in Hobermans analysis.

 

[Grandillusion]

The interviewer mention jaded - and then continues.....


You only asked LMG after you had missed key points in Hobermans analysis.

Missed key points? All I'm trying to get you and every other tedious hypocritical pseudo-fan to do is address those points. Which you signally fail to do.

I asked LMG after a few minutes, having realised his dismissive bullet-point plan really didn't address anything that Hoberman was talking about.

Just how thick are you?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Missed key points? All I'm trying to get you and every other tedious hypocritical pseudo-fan to do is address those points. Which you signally fail to do.

I asked LMG after a few minutes, having realised his dismissive bullet-point plan really didn't address anything that Hoberman was talking about.

Just how thick are you?

Which points were those again - if it was "bleak" or "jaded" then that has been covered and dismissed as your imagination.

 

[Grandillusion]

Which points were those again - if it was "bleak" or "jaded" then that has been covered and dismissed as your imagination.

Oh God, you really are thick. Here goes...slowly... Hoberman's "points" are not that he's jaded or not jaded or bleak. Get it?

His "points" are the cultural contradictions which he has identified as being so problematical, historically and for the future. Comprende?

Now will you please go away, you are insanely irritating.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh God, you really are thick. Here goes...slowly... Hoberman's "points" are not that he's jaded or not jaded or bleak. Get it?

His "points" are the cultural contradictions which he has identified as being so problematical, historically and for the future. Comprende?

Now will you please go away, you are insanely irritating.

And you mistakenly took his point to be about "fans".

Hoberman mentioned the "culture" in the context of the sport - thats why you keep missing his point:

I would propose de-emphasizing the policing operation while concentrating on rebuilding what the sport is inside elite cycling culture,” he said. “You have to pay a lot more attention to the riders. You have to look very hard at the team as a community that shares the right values.”

 

[Grandillusion]

And you mistakenly took his point to be about "fans".

Hoberman mentioned the "culture" in the context of the sport - thats why you keep missing his point:

No, wrong again. There are several points he makes, one of which relates to fan's & which can be seen very plainly with a touch of the button on, for instance, the TDF thread. It's painfully obvious.

I have also tried to get somewhere regarding the total silence from all teams and riders.

Hence my asking questions about, for instance, Cadel Evans' recent pathetic public utterances. Total indifference and silence regarding the obvious conflicts of interest with their CPA boss Bugno's stance and position regarding the UCI, the recent newspapers' mandate for change, Armstrong's credibility.

Ad ****in' nauseam mate.

Comprende?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, wrong again. There are several points he makes, one of which relates to fan's & which can be seen very plainly with a touch of the button on, for instance, the TDF thread. It's painfully obvious.

I have also tried to get somewhere regarding the total silence from all teams and riders.

Hence my asking questions about, for instance, Cadel Evans' recent pathetic public utterances. Total indifference and silence regarding the obvious conflicts of interest with their CPA boss Bugno's stance and position regarding the UCI, the recent newspapers' mandate for change, Armstrong's credibility.

Ad ****in' nauseam mate.

Comprende?

I ain't your mate.

The only point you made on this thread was about fans - that's it.

If you think I have to reread every one of your posts from different threads to try and understand your point then no I am not going to comprende.

 

[Grandillusion]

I ain't your mate.

The only point you made on this thread was about fans - that's it.

If you think I have to reread every one of your posts from different threads to try and understand your point then no I am not going to comprende.

You certainly aren't my mate, mate. You're a tedious stalking bore whose been wrong on every point you've made so far, and don't even have the decency to say sorry.

So will you now **** off?

 

[lean mean &green]

LMG gave the airy impression this was a simple tick the list job. He was plainly attempting to patronise and dismiss. Don't try and bull**** me mate. I know your game.

And LMG can fight his own battles.

not quite. the solutions ARE relatively simple. the fox can't watch the hen house. implementing those changes is far from simple or else it would be done already. hoberman gets it. everybody with half a brain gets it.

its not enough to say this system is broken. everyone understands that too.

the next question is what does effective antidoping look like? for someone who has dedicated so much time to understanding the problem, hoberman's solutions are vague to say the least.

i'm not really sure what the last few pages are about.

 

[Grandillusion]

not quite. the solutions ARE relatively simple. the fox can't watch the hen house. implementing those changes is far from simple or else it would be done already. hoberman gets it. everybody with half a brain gets it.

its not enough to say this system is broken. everyone understands that too.

the next question is what does effective antidoping look like? for someone who has dedicated so much time to understanding the problem, hoberman's solutions are vague to say the least.

i'm not really sure what the last few pages are about.

Good, we agree then in essence. The implementation is the only thing that counts, it's going to be as difficult as we all agree it will be to effect, and Hoberman seems to be implying he may have some solutions.

The article (and that's all it is, not a paper or essay by Hoberman) ends with the tantalising prospect of some solutions. He says he's optimistic, post RD, even in the face of the sorts of complex cultural problems he's identified, which have led him to be described as somewhat jaded.

He's been in touch with people like l'Arriviste who have a serious academic interest in the whole issue.

I for one am intrigued to know more, not to mention explore the difficulties he has identified. These issues have not been discussed elsewhere as far as I'm aware. Others just seemed to want to sneer, dismiss and undermine. Which I find pathetic and unworthy, especially on a site like this which you would have thought might be welcoming of any new insight, or the chance to explore those issues in a rational way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good, we agree then in essence. The implementation is the only thing that counts, it's going to be as difficult as we all agree it will be to effect, and Hoberman seems to be implying he may have some solutions.

The article (and that's all it is, not a paper or essay by Hoberman) ends with the tantalising prospect of some solutions. He says he's optimistic, post RD, even in the face of the sorts of complex cultural problems he's identified, which have led him to be described as somewhat jaded.

He's been in touch with people like l'Arriviste who have a serious academic interest in the whole issue.

I for one am intrigued to know more, not to mention explore the difficulties he has identified. These issues have not been discussed elsewhere as far as I'm aware. Others just seemed to want to sneer, dismiss and undermine. Which I find pathetic and unworthy, especially on a site like this which you would have thought might be welcoming of any new insight, or the chance to explore those issues in a rational way.

You weren't too intrigued when you dismissed LMGs earlier post as "airy" and "patronizing".

As LMG has stated here earlier (and you dismissed by saying "You can try and fool yourself, but don't think anybody else will be convinced" - there is little if anything that Hoberman has mentioned that has not been covered here before.
If you were genuinely interested in discussion you would have asked where, or for those opinions, instead you continued to argue that Hobermans points were "bleak".

 

[Grandillusion]

You weren't too intrigued when you dismissed LMGs earlier post as "airy" and "patronizing".

As LMG has stated here earlier (and you dismissed by saying "You can try and fool yourself, but don't think anybody else will be convinced" - there is little if anything that Hoberman has mentioned that has not been covered here before.
If you were genuinely interested in discussion you would have asked where, or for those opinions, instead you continued to argue that Hobermans points were "bleak".

Not you again? Wrong...again. My feeling that the tone of his initial post to me was airy and patronising is entirely correct.

That perception is entirely unrelated to any idea of my being intrigued about Hoberman's insights regarding the cultural complexities he has identified.

Don't try bull****ting me about some mythological serious discussion on the contradictions and difficulties Hoberman is talking about.

I've been trying for over a week, and before the Hoberman article came up, to get anyone on this site to face the contradictions inherent in the attitudes of the jokers banging away on the Professional Cycling side of the site.

And trying to get some movement (pre the article) regarding the deafening silence from the riders & teams post RD.

Now get back in your box. LMG can fight his own battles you pathetic ****.

 

[ElChingon]

lean,mean,&green, looks like the Illusion is not so Grand. Then again, its an Illusion

My Rhetorical Question still stands.

 

[Grandillusion]

lean,mean,&green, looks like the Illusion is not so Grand. Then again, its an Illusion

My Rhetorical Question still stands.

And you sonny, back in yer box.

 

[andy1234]

And you sonny, back in yer box.

Grandillusion forum history.

Week 1 - humble little me, I dont know much about cycling, please help me understand. Its not my sport....

Week 2 - Thanks for all your help, you great guys. Did I mention cycling is not my sport?

Week 3 - F**k you all!, I know better than everyone, oh and f**k you all.

Now that's what I call a learning curve...

 

[Grandillusion]

Grandillusion forum history.

Week 1 - humble little me, I dont know much about cycling, please help me understand. Its not my sport....

Week 2 - Thanks for all your help, you great guys. Did I mention cycling is not my sport?

Week 3 - F**k you all!, I know better than everyone, oh and f**k you all.

Now that's what I call a learning curve...

No, that's the way you're choosing to read the "learning curve". The points I'm trying to get some clarity on are unrelated to VAM, or haematocrit, or reticulocytes or homologous blood transfusions. Or the time so and so took in 2006 up the Col de Ventoux or whatever.

I'm coming at this as someone who had a general, naive type of interest which many TDF watchers will have had. Awed by the suffering. Thinking the drugs were about getting to the end, not winning, and therefore ok really.

I used to love watching LeMond & Hinault when I was younger, but had no interest in the technicalities of the peleton. Just the romance of the pain.

This whole affair has revealed a seedy depressing underworld behind that romantic facade, and I want to know what's going on.

So don't try and paint it as something else.

 

[Grandillusion]

And it's certainly not "**** you all", as you well know. It's "**** some of you and you know who you are".

Just for clarity.

 

[ElChingon]

Did a tree fall?

 

[ferryman]

Not you again? Wrong...again. My feeling that the tone of his initial post to me was airy and patronising is entirely correct.

That perception is entirely unrelated to any idea of my being intrigued about
Now get back in your box. LMG can fight his own battles you pathetic ****.

C'mon GI, you don't agree with the guy but no need for that. Keep it kind of civilised, please

 

[ferryman]

And it's certainly not "**** you all", as you well know. It's "**** some of you and you know who you are".

Just for clarity.

See, that's better, well sort of but at least not a direct personal attack I guess

 

[Grandillusion]

C'mon GI, you don't agree with the guy but no need for that. Keep it kind of civilised, please

Sincere apologies to all forumites. I snapped, and meant to post t**t (not that that's much better I know), but am horrified if anybody thinks I lowered myself to the C word.

Won't happen again, and I'm back to lurking. Apologies again, it was a banning crime I know

 

[Grandillusion]

And apologies to the good Dr. for such a response also.

 

[red_flanders]

This was a good thread and can be again. 35 off topic, insulting posts with endless bickering and swearing have been deleted.

If your posts have been deleted, you're in danger of a ban.

 

[Le breton]

Sorry, I don't follow you there: which paper?

.

OOPS

I should have written, Mark Johnson's Velonation's paper inspired by Hoberman's study

 

[Lukenwolf]

After reading that article twice, to me it boils down to this: You can't eliminate doping - the best you can hope for is making it less common.

First of all: Only because the Cold War is over, the nationalism is still there just as strong as before. We Germans have a unique insight into that. East Germany used doping to promote itself. A country of 16 Million people - there are cities with more than that - regularly popped up in the Top 5 in Olympics and other major competitions. The whole eastern bloc relied on east german research into doping. After the wall fell, the big cleanup started. The things that came to light back then makes Armstrong's system look like a kiddies birthday party. An former coaches were jailed and banned by the truckload.
Did that eliminate doping or the underlying nationalism? Phat chance. It is still there. Actually before the London Olympics each association of the different kinds of sports got mail from the NOC with detailed demands on how many medals they were supposed to bring home. Those that failed the quota will get less money from the state next year, those that exceeded it, will get more.

How is such a system supposed to discourage the use of performance enhancing drugs. It's good ol' G.D.R. - same dance, just a different tune and I don't believe that Germany is the only country where things work like that.