Is Doping talk fair game on the Forums?

[BigBoat]

I'm just wondering. I'm not trying to be some "troll" or something LOL.

 

[nobrakes]

I avoid it. Pointless accusations and inuendo seem to rule in these discussions.

 

[Henri Desgrange]

It's fair game. How else would I have been able to say "I told you so" when Schumacher and Ricco got busted?

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

I avoid it. Pointless accusations and inuendo seem to rule in these discussions.

Not so pointless when you show up at race after race where the word gets out that so-and-so is here, so I guess we're all racing for 2nd. And it wasn't for lack of talent.

I heard Museeuw and Pete Van Pete used to pop magic mushrooms before pre-race interviews. That explains a lot. "You have to have lots of luckies". "Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh sh:t uuuuuuuuuuummmm aa you have to like the cobblestones".

 

[jaylew]

I think your post will get pulled if you blatantly accuse someone of doping w/o a positive drug test but other than that it's fair game.

IMO, it gets old fast and ruins interesting threads quickly.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

I used to race with 4 guys locally (who shall remain nameless) that all got busted when they went pro, and it all went down within 2 seasons.

 

[lookkg386]

This is a forum on cycling and that is a major discussion point so can't be avoided, but doesn't need to be in every thread.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

I agree. The doping snipes are unavoidable. Nature of the beast.

 

[lookkg386]

I used to race with 4 guys locally (who shall remain nameless) that all got busted when they went pro, and it all went down within 2 seasons.

Nice, let me guess you didn't go pro -and you were the only one clean, no wonder it's such a problem..

BTW here's a thread for you

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=81

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Yeah, I posted one there. Oops, one of the names got out.

Didn't go pro, but we sure won some great local races when they were gone. Now that they're back, that old "spark" they had seems to be gone. IfyaknowaddImean.

 

[Stani Kléber]

Sadly it's a really big issue. Valverde could take a two year ban any day soon. The UCI could announce several bans under the bio passport scheme within "days or weeks".

Or look at the two riders at the top of the Pro Tour rankings, Davis and LL Sanchez or Contador, all linked to the same affairs and if the Spanish investigation picks up then these guys could well take a big ban, so another scandal and negative headlines again.

 

[benpounder]

I'm just wondering [why doping seems so contentious]. I'm not trying to be some "troll" or something LOL.

It is not the doping issue that becomes contentious, and thus tiresome, rather how so many have to use doping to attack riders/teams/nations. Especially when innuendo, or even rank speculation gets tossed about as if it were fact.

You dislike Lance? Well he was doping all his career! ...or...
You dislike Astana? Look at how many riders are within five degrees of seperation of a doping team!
...or...
You dislike Spain? Look at how Spanish authorities have mis-handled Operation Puerto - all Spanish riders DOPE!

The problem is (as with politics, religion, etc) that too often, emotions drive rhetoric, which either sounds great to ones particular choir (Yeah, right on sister) or so is so offputting to the non-choir-member (stuff it brother). When laden with hyperbole, any topic will never initiate honest conversation.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

If you are "laden with hyperbole", would you still pass a drug screen?

 

[Snake8]

Yes its an issue. Does it have to be an issue in every topic? NO!

Doping is an issue in baseball, football, american football, etc.etc. its an issue in all of sport, yet cycling seems to be the ONLY sport where any topic that comes up some knob claims "doping" for every victory - and even in some cases as reasons for defeat.

Cycling is the only sport i am really passionate about. I understand there is doping. I want a clean sport as much as the next guy, but I dont want to have to talk about doping ALL THE GODDAMN TIME. Doping or not, there is art and beauty in the sport of cycling, and every once in a while it would be nice to have a conversation about the flowers without obsessing about the manure that is used to grow them.

 

[tifosa]

I want a clean sport as much as the next guy, but I dont want to have to talk about doping ALL THE GODDAMN TIME. Doping or not, there is art and beauty in the sport of cycling, and every once in a while it would be nice to have a conversation about the flowers without obsessing about the manure that is used to grow them.

Bravo!

It's disheartening in a thread with a "Non-D" (no doping discussion) disclaimer (i.e. Rock Racing), the thread degenerated into doping. To retain a measure of control and sanity, I've just created quite an extensive ignore list consisting of many trolls, wums, and asshats, from many other cycling forums (why the constant migration from DP, JC, CF, et al? Aren't you ever happy????). It's amusing to see 5, sometimes 8 posts in a row, all by user names I've now "ignored", prattle on with their snide asides and tantrums about doping. Amazingly, once ignored, threads maintain their continuity.

I fully realize this is just one more opinion on the subject, but the asshats really need carry on elsewhere. And you know who you are.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

As long as it's news.

 

[BigBoat]

I agree. The doping snipes are unavoidable. Nature of the beast.

I also race occasionally against Adam these days. He has done very well as a non-pro on Texas. I wonder if they want to develop that team to a division 3 program.

I dont mean to imply above. Maybe I replied to your other comment (the first one.)

 

[Robert Merivel]

Not so pointless when you show up at race after race where the word gets out that so-and-so is here, so I guess we're all racing for 2nd. And it wasn't for lack of talent.

I heard Museeuw and Pete Van Pete used to pop magic mushrooms before pre-race interviews. That explains a lot. "You have to have lots of luckies". "Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh sh:t uuuuuuuuuuummmm aa you have to like the cobblestones".

Now that's interesting. I don't know if I'm suppose to take you seriously regarding the mushrooms, but if it was true I'd be curious what the racers experience might have been. We always hear the stories of the drugs that improve the body's ability to perform. But rarely do we (or maybe just me) hear of a story of a drug (that was detected later) that alter's one's state of consciousness/mind, e.g. ingesting; pot, mushrooms, LSD, etc.. For some reason, I don't equate mushrooms or pot to somehow improving performance. Anyone out there take any mind altering substances before a race or just to train? Did it help? Hinder?

Now those might be some interesting stories.

Is there any indication or proof that smoking pot could/would improve one's physical output on a bike? If not, then simply the fact that these drugs are (considered) illegal in many countries, allows the racing world to align itself with a certain mind-set and, stands in judgment? I don't really care whether a racer wants to smoke pot away from racing, if indeed pot is not harmful. If that particular drug doesn't improve performance why should it matter? And, if pot is considered detrimental to the well being of a rider/racer, the drug is "Bad" for you, then what about the consumption of "dangerously" large quantities of coffee, or sugar, alcohol or even sex?

If pot became legal does that mean a racer would be free of punishment if it was detected in the urine?

Oh yeah, the "sex and cycling" would be an interesting topic. Why is it that the topic of sex seems like a taboo in the cycling world. There's got to be some amazing stories out there about some wild rides after the race in the hotel.

 

[cyclelicious]

Bravo!

It's disheartening in a thread with a "Non-D" (no doping discussion) disclaimer (i.e. Rock Racing), the thread degenerated into doping. To retain a measure of control and sanity, I've just created quite an extensive ignore list consisting of many trolls, wums, and asshats, from many other cycling forums (why the constant migration from DP, JC, CF, et al? Aren't you ever happy????). It's amusing to see 5, sometimes 8 posts in a row, all by user names I've now "ignored", prattle on with their snide asides and tantrums about doping. Amazingly, once ignored, threads maintain their continuity.

I fully realize this is just one more opinion on the subject, but the asshats really need carry on elsewhere. And you know who you are.

Thank you,
yours is an opinion I happen to concur with. Instead of having civil discourse about a real problem, migrating TWA's gangs blab on purely for sport and to hear themselves talk. Subversive slagging is the usual M.O. which gets old fast and is hardly clever. It certainly doesn't do justice to the real issues at hand.

 

[ElChingon]

This brings up a humorous thing I come up on every time I read Cyclingnews.com stories about any rider who has been hit with the slightest of doping infraction or rumor (except Lance). The story usually begins with the matter at hand with a quick tangent to the riders past doping history with all the links to the old news about the doping case/accusation/etc., then after that major distraction they pop back to the story which started the blurb.

Its that kind of tabloid journalism that brings cycling down the doping sewers. Yet, its the same journalism that keep nagging us about how doping is still in the news instead of bike racing.

When will we ever get back to racing stories where riders discuss tactics and what happened in the race? Or are we now stuck with such tabloid journalist that it will be impossible to ever get back to the racing and stories about racing? Sure, doping is sometimes the news story but to keep attaching any doping links to a riders current story even if it has nothing to do with doping is just tabloid journalism or in this case cycling doping journalism. Then there's the whole thing about attaching any rumor to a rider forever except that one, how's that for fair journalism? What is he paying cyclingnews.com as well?

Or am I the only person who notices these things?

 

[bianchigirl]

The problem with threads like this is that they polarise opinion and make the situation worse. Of course some posters will see doping behind every exceptional ride - and, unfortunately, modern cycling history dictates that most exceptional rides are fuelled by doping. Now, whether you choose to ignore that issue or not is up to you but if you want the sport to be credible the problem has to be addressed. I suppose it depends on where you think change should be driven from - top down or bottom up - and whether allowing the UCI to drive change means they'll make any better a fist of cleaning up the sport than they have since their inception.

We're all here because we care about the sport which is why I would never use the ignore button, even for the most rabid fanboy We all have an opinion to express and the bright to express it within the rules of the forum. We have a forum to express those opinions in. The problem is, by setting up threads that moan about those who address the doping issue, you end up defining camps and setting posters against each other. Shall I start another one titled 'Is constantly being in denial fair game on these forums?'. I like to read all shades of opinion, have a good argument and learn something. Don't think I'd do that if I had all the deniers on ignore, now would I?

 

[Stani Kléber]

Well said Bianchigirl.

Sadly doping is probably the biggest issue in the sport. Event the recession doesn't scare sponsors away as much as doping.

Just be vigilant. One example, I read this week that the team doctor at Liberty Seguros during the time of the Puerto raids, Dr Raquel Ortolano, somehow managed to stay on at Astana until Vinokourov was caught blood doping in the Tour de France. She lost her job when Bruyneel took over and cleaned out the squad. But the doctor has now joined the Euskatel squad for this season. It would be like having Madoff's accountant now charged with auditing AIG, it's just not good enough.

Does this mean Euskatel are doping? No, but a previous Euskatel doctor was apparently selling EPO to David Millar. Now they get Vino's doctor on board. It means fans need to ask why this team wants to employ people with bad reputations. In other words, the sport brings suspicion on itself at times.

 

[Henri Desgrange]

Bravo!

It's disheartening in a thread with a "Non-D" (no doping discussion) disclaimer (i.e. Rock Racing), the thread degenerated into doping. To retain a measure of control and sanity, I've just created quite an extensive ignore list consisting of many trolls, wums, and asshats, from many other cycling forums (why the constant migration from DP, JC, CF, et al? Aren't you ever happy????). It's amusing to see 5, sometimes 8 posts in a row, all by user names I've now "ignored", prattle on with their snide asides and tantrums about doping. Amazingly, once ignored, threads maintain their continuity.

I fully realize this is just one more opinion on the subject, but the asshats really need carry on elsewhere. And you know who you are.

So you aren't a fan of diverse opinion then? I post at JC. and I'm quite happy there thank you, there is a nice range of differing opinions, and a distinct lack of censorship, unlike this forum. I only started to post here because some of the naivety in some of the posts I read was depressing, not just the guys with their heads in the sand about doping, but threads such as 'Has Paris-Nice lost it's prestige' A fair enough debate if you are comparing to T-A for example, but people claiming that California was now a more prestigeous race? It's your right to have your head in the sand and ignore people who have different opinions to your own, but don't you think calling people 'Asshats' (what does that mean anyway?) is inflaming a situation that seemingly upsets you so much?

 

[patricknd]

Bravo!

It's disheartening in a thread with a "Non-D" (no doping discussion) disclaimer (i.e. Rock Racing), the thread degenerated into doping. To retain a measure of control and sanity, I've just created quite an extensive ignore list consisting of many trolls, wums, and asshats, from many other cycling forums (why the constant migration from DP, JC, CF, et al? Aren't you ever happy????). It's amusing to see 5, sometimes 8 posts in a row, all by user names I've now "ignored", prattle on with their snide asides and tantrums about doping. Amazingly, once ignored, threads maintain their continuity.

I fully realize this is just one more opinion on the subject, but the asshats really need carry on elsewhere. And you know who you are.

bravo

could i get a copy of that list?

 

[Mellow Velo]

WUMs?....Now that's an interesting term. A bit of a rare beast, I'd say.

Look, it all boils down to a simple question.
What are the implications for the sport, if the issue of doping is not discussed or reported anywhere?
Fans of individual riders need to look at the bigger picture.
If we and news agencies adopt Omerta, we wipe out the ideaology of a spirit of fair play and embrace injustice.
Cheating becomes acceptable as an everyday practice and, ultimately, we jeopardise the health of the athletes.

Were this to be the case, only one course of action would be left to those who care. That of turning one's back on the sport, for good.