Evans...

[Ninety5rpm]

I am not going to defend BigBoat per se. I will say that he is a bit more honest than a number of other commentors. Every few years some new 'hero cyclist' arrises and garners much adulation from cycling fans. Chances are that that revered rider will test positive, be accused of doping by a source considered by any of the legal authorities, or be closely linked to a rider/doctor/clinic that is under investigation: Kohl, Ricco, Landis, Valverde, Contador, Basso... Yet every year those of us active in the various cycling forums have seen the infatuated fan laud 'their' guy as the only one that really seems to be clean.

I know, I did it with both Hamilton and Landis.

But over time, an honest fan will recognize that their guy is just as succeptible to the temptations as the next to buy a precious few seconds. It is not necessarily a condemnation of the particular cyclist, rather an indictment of the entire cycling body. As anectdote, a number of years ago there was an interview with several NBA referees. It it they admited that there existed a tacit agreement between the NBA, the owners association, and the players union, that they should not foul out the star players, even when said star player was consistently committing fouls that other, lesser, players were being charged with. As with cycling, if a sport can not generate interest, it can not earn money. The riders are just playing their part, to be held liable for their flagrant violations to be sure, but not the evil culprit that the neophyte has been led to believe.

But to come to this conclusion, one has to be honest with oneself. Hero worship is dangerous on a number or front, but it's most blatant pitfall is it blinds us to faults and precludes honest and realistic evaluations. This becomes particularly apparent when one encounters another offering a caustic opinion of our hero. Instead of listening, one lashes out in rhetorical fury, protective of, and defensive for our hero.

Now you may think BigBoat is attacking your hero, but he really isnt. He is attacking the status quo of cycling that sets forth rules that allow doping, as long as certain lines are not crossed. And I think everyone here would concur that those lines are not just way too lenient, but way too fuzzy as well. Basso, Ricco, and Vino got busted and they are, or will soon be back in the pro pelaton - Heras, Kohl, and Ullrich got busted and are gone.

The question is, therefore, will we allow ourselves to be blinded by temporary devotion to a particular rider at the expense of the lasting integrity of our beloved sport.

Personally, I think Levi is a clean rider, I also think Cadel is clean, and Sastre as well. But with so many of their collegues proven, or implicated in doping schemes, there is no way in hell that I'd argue that they are indisputably clean. Statistically speaking, the odds are against them being clean.

+1, especially this: "The riders are just playing their part, to be held liable for their flagrant violations to be sure, but not the evil culprit that the neophyte has been led to believe."

I do have two relatively minor objections.

1) "It is not necessarily a condemnation of the particular cyclist, rather an indictment of the entire cycling body." - I don't think it's even fair to indict the entire cycling body. Even to the extent that there is some, shall we say, reluctance, to make too many busts for the same reasons the NBA refs look the other way, can you really blame them? This is their livelihood. Besides, even if they were 100% effective at busting everyone they failed a test, that would still be only a drop in the bucket because of all the undetectable substances and techniques being used.

2) "Personally, I think Levi is a clean rider, I also think Cadel is clean, and Sastre as well. " ROTFLOL!!!

 

[rhubroma]

BigBoat is a regular at this site http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/Forum/index.php?
Under the user name Realgains.
He obviously has knowledge about drug use in sport and even seems to prescribe what to use and when. He admits he has, to use his term, ridden with a jacked crit. He clearly has some inside knowledge about Pro cycling so I wouldn't discount what he says. At 40 years of age he wouldn't be that long out of the pro levels if that is where his knowledge comes from. I wonder if he is not involved in the medical/training side of things.

I'm not posting this to call the guy out or anything, but to help people to see that he isn't necessarily just some hack with to much time on his hands. I've read his posts on that forum and find them to be quite educational. I may not agree with his methods but he seems like he knows his stuff. You need to be a member to see the forum section "Endurance athletics and sport specific training" it really is an eye opener to read what is going on in the sport world, and not just the pro levels. If you ride at any sort of level it would seem that you would've been smashed by someone using PED's.

My one reservation about BB's posts here is that I sometimes wonder if people working so close to the coal face, as it were, start to rationalise that everyone must think and act like them. Personally I think he is closer to the truth than some people realise, but I do hope that he overstates things somewhat. In Cadel's case I hope he is wrong.

That's because these guys who are bashing BigBoat's analysis, which in this case form a pure "factual" point of view is valid, have just as many preconceptions about their favorite rider/s status as being obviously clean. They are thus the antithesis of BigBoat, who assumes they are all doped. Probably because they have never ridden seriously and at a certain level before and have quite a difficult time in believing how widespread doping is in the sport, whereas, Bigboat, by contrast, has an "insider's" perspective.

But it is much less entertaining and, at times, rather annoying, to have to read the naive fanboys putting forth their "whiter than snow" drivel. Nobody's whiter than snow in the pro peleton.

Having ridden at a certain level and with guys who doped, I never assume, in principle, that a rider is clean who is going for a win, or even participating, in a major ProTour event. It's owing to the reality of a mentality I was exposed to of doing "what's necessary" to just compete, let alone be competative, in a drug addicted environment which has gone so far down its road of addiction, that doping has simply become sport culture and "the way the game is played."

Now based on BigBoats analysis I'm not able to say whether or not Cadel is a doper, but with or without it I'm not capable of putting anyone in the beyond a doubt category. And when your experiences at a certain level of the sport over time have brought you to such a conclusion: the sentimental viewpoints and even those logical form an anlysis of "the facts" standpoint, when "the facts" are merely swords in a fencing game between lawyers,' have about as much convincing power as does a lawn mower engine at a formula one Grand Prix race.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

it takes two people two argue...

No, it doesn't.

 

[benpounder]

2) "Personally, I think Levi is a clean rider, I also think Cadel is clean, and Sastre as well. " ROTFLOL!!!

With what I said after that, I'm not sure why you would find that so funny...

 

[powderpuff]

No, it doesn't.

You're quite right but you look like a fool if you lose the argument and there is only one person...

 

[ambrose]

Every day, everywhere people use bogus evidence to influence people.

Mouthing comments about his right to express his opinion while objecting to the spin of his opinion sounds just a wee bit dictatorial... you know, like you really dont like the way he may influence people.

I disagree, my point was in regards to interesting interpritation of evidence.
Let me change some names etc. and i'll give you a similar argument to what the original post was.

This is not meant to be rascist or in anyway question Obama and his election (just in case there are any gun toting rednecks on this forum)

Barack obama, the current USA president was born to a kenyan father, and spent a significant time in indonesia.
In Kenya there are high rates of crime and corruption. the 2007 election was flawed, as proven by foreign neutral observers.
Indonesia is/was also very corrupt, and the time when Obama was in the country, it was under the control of Suharto, also believed to be corrupt and a violent dictator. Obama must of been heavily influenced by these people.
From this we can see that the USA will soon become a dictatorship, and that Obama only got elected through corruption.

This is not what i believe

So my point, I could say that i was suspicious of Obama's election and that is my opinion, but to then call on bogus evidence to influence others is a completely different thing, or not telling the full story. eg. it is possible that Obama decided that he wanted to follow the path of a dictator, or that became 100% against it. This would completley change everything.

Spining his opinion is one thing, but spining the facts and the evidence is another.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I disagree, my point was in regards to interesting interpritation of evidence.
Let me change some names etc. and i'll give you a similar argument to what the original post was.

This is not meant to be rascist or in anyway question Obama and his election (just in case there are any gun toting rednecks on this forum)

Barack obama, the current USA president was born to a kenyan father, and spent a significant time in indonesia.
In Kenya there are high rates of crime and corruption. the 2007 election was flawed, as proven by foreign neutral observers.
Indonesia is/was also very corrupt, and the time when Obama was in the country, it was under the control of Suharto, also believed to be corrupt and a violent dictator. Obama must of been heavily influenced by these people.
From this we can see that the USA will soon become a dictatorship, and that Obama only got elected through corruption.

This is not what i believe

So my point, I could say that i was suspicious of Obama's election and that is my opinion, but to then call on bogus evidence to influence others is a completely different thing, or not telling the full story. eg. it is possible that Obama decided that he wanted to follow the path of a dictator, or that became 100% against it. This would completley change everything.

Spining his opinion is one thing, but spining the facts and the evidence is another.

The appropriate way to react to such a specious argument is to point out why it is specious. It is not appropriate to attack the forum member who presents it. There is no reasonable justification for personalizing any of this, no matter what is said about whom.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You're quite right but you look like a fool if you lose the argument and there is only one person...

My jokes aren't working today at all. With apologies to Monty Python.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

 

[ambrose]

The appropriate way to react to such a specious argument is to point out why it is specious. It is not appropriate to attack the forum member who presents it. There is no reasonable justification for personalizing any of this, no matter what is said about whom.

I think you'll find i've already done that, and your probably going to say next that i should move on, and you'll be %100 correct. Just get annoyed when people make claims using evidence which shows they know nothing, but people who don't know the full facts behind the evidence would find the evidence very believable.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

With what I said after that, I'm not sure why you would find that so funny...

If I contended, "I think the Earth is flat", you would laugh, correct? Would it be any less funny if I qualified it similar to your qualification:

"I think the Earth is flat. But with so many contrary facts proven otherwise, there is no way in hell that I'd argue that the earth is indisputably flat. Statistically speaking, the odds are against the earth being flat."

If anything, the qualification makes it even more absurd and funny, doesn't it?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I think you'll find i've already done that, and your probably going to say next that i should move on, and you'll be %100 correct. Just get annoyed when people make claims using evidence which shows they know nothing, but people who don't know the full facts behind the evidence would find the evidence very believable.

In my opinion, this quote personalizes the situation unnecessarily:

i agree with this, however i do not respect the way on this forum, he's using bogus evidence to influence people. (regard my earlier post on the AIS). people are allowed to have opinions, people are allowed to voice them, but if you are going to try and provide something beyond opinion, such as giving sources and other evidence, please first check their credibility, and weather they apply to your argument and are beyond some form of idle speculation which anyone with half a brain can come up with.

This seems insulting, certainly not complementary, with respect to the person being talked about. Regardless of whether this is essentially right or wrong about what it is saying, I see no reason to comment on the person.

Note how I managed to make this point about behavior without personalizing anything. Isn't that better, or it makes no difference?

 

[benpounder]

If I contended, "I think the Earth is flat",

Bad argument, for I was not contending that the earth was flat, merely opining that I hope Levi is clean in a world of dopers - yet while admitting that "my hero" could well have been doped hiis way to stardom. As I stated elsewhere, were Levi to be relegated into the realm of doper, he would reside aside Roberto Heras in my panthon of cyclists. Really good, but doper none the less.

I will not take down other's hero in pretense that mine is better [cleaner]...

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Bad argument, for I was not contending that the earth was flat, merely opining that I hope Levi is clean in a world of dopers - yet while admitting that "my hero" could well have been doped hiis way to stardom. As I stated elsewhere, were Levi to be relegated into the realm of doper, he would reside aside Roberto Heras in my panthon of cyclists. Really good, but doper none the less.

I will not take down other's hero in pretense that mine is better [cleaner]...

The undisputed fact that you did not contend the earth was flat does not make my argument bad. The point at issue was whether the qualifying words make the initial statement less absurd/funny. In my example, I used a different absurd/funny statement than you did, but (essentially) used the same qualification in order to illustrate that the qualification does not make the initial statement any less funny/absurd. You get that, right?

By the way, you did not say you hoped Levi was clean.

FWIW, back in my I believe in Tyler days, and even through the Flandis fiasco, I too hoped Levi was clean. Looking back, the best explanation for that '06 dismal ITT result of his was a missed dose of something special...

 

[benpounder]

...

Point taken.

 

[BigBoat]

This needs a bump over (along with others.)

 

[Archibald]

there are some that still believe that the Earth is flat...