It's not cheating if :

[Andynonomous]

It's not cheating if :


- They don't enforce the rules.
- You don't get caught.
- You run a charity.
- Others are cheating too.
- Other cheats aren't being punished.
- You are popular.
- You are powerful.
- You are wealthy.
- You are humble.
- You think that there is a conspiracy against you.
- You successfully intimidate your accusers.
- You have passed many drug tests previously.
- You can come up with a plausible (even if it is unlikely) explanation for your positive test result (you know, like ingesting tainted meat from the EU).
- You have a really hot girlfriend that everyone wants to bone (like Cheryl Crowe).
- You can't prove I doped in a court of law.
- I have a sympathetic life story (like I saved a kitten up a tree, or survived a life-threatening disease).
- The sport's authorities are corrupt enough to cover up the problem.
- The sports authorities are corrupt enough to be bought off.
- I have enough hyperpartisan fanboys to shout down the accusations.
- I pull the "race or country of origin" card.
- I deny I cheated until my dying breath.
- I hate cancer.
- I can confuse you with "shades of gray" arguments (Is it really cheating to get an advantage by taking EPO, if others get an advantage from wearing glasses ?).
- Other sports are getting a pass.




Any others ?

 

[D-Queued]

It's not cheating if :

...
- You are humble.
...
Any others ?

Pardon?

Dave.

 

[Andynonomous]

I am referring to the fans of a certain athlete who say we should ignore the evidence against him, because he is "humble" (opposite of egotistical).

 

[D-Queued]

I am referring to the fans of a certain athlete who say we should ignore the evidence against him, because he is "humble" (opposite of egotistical).

In that case, there are a bunch of descriptors that a true fanboy would never agree with on your list:

It's not cheating if :


- They don't enforce the rules.
- You don't get caught.
...
- Others are cheating too. (the 'too' is not a fanboy thing)
- Other cheats aren't being punished. (what do you mean 'other' cheats?)
...
- You think that there is a conspiracy against you. (fanboys would never agree with the conditional)
- You successfully intimidate your accusers. (fanboys would never agree that intimidation was required or pursued)
...
- You can come up with a plausible (even if it is unlikely) explanation for your positive test result (you know, like ingesting tainted meat from the EU). (fanboys would never agree that there was a positive test result, not even for corticosteroids)
...
- The sport's authorities are corrupt enough to cover up the problem. (a true fanboy would know not to go near this with a R25k donation)
- The sports authorities are corrupt enough to be bought off. (ditto)
- I have enough hyperpartisan fanboys to shout down the accusations. (no fanboy would ever admit being a fanboy)
- I pull the "race or country of origin" card. (what?)
- I deny I cheated until my dying breath. (fanboys would not agree that denial was required)
....
- I can confuse you with "shades of gray" arguments (Is it really cheating to get an advantage by taking EPO, if others get an advantage from wearing glasses ?). (way out of fanboy territory)
- Other sports are getting a pass. (fanboy's would insist that cycling has no loopholes)
...

Dave.

 

[Andynonomous]

Sorry, but some of the items are from the cheating athletes perspective, and some are from the cheating athletes fanboys perspective. These are a list of excuses I have heard here, and on other boards for highly suspect athletes.

They are just meant to be in fun. I think you are taking them too literally.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

It's not cheating... it's cycling. I am sure that you will eventually figure that out.

 

[ultimobici]

It's not cheating... it's sport. I am sure that you will eventually figure that out.

Fixed it for you.

 

[hrotha]

It's not cheating if you have a dog.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Sorry, but some of the items are from the cheating athletes perspective, and some are from the cheating athletes fanboys perspective. These are a list of excuses I have heard here, and on other boards for highly suspect athletes.

They are just meant to be in fun. I think you are taking them too literally.

Ignoring the "in jest" part of that post:

I suspect that you have included several items that are made as observations why people are cheating. maybe even accept it as a reasonable argument why it is almost impossible not to cheat under the current system:

- They don't enforce the rules.
- Others are cheating too.
- Other cheats aren't being punished.
- You can come up with a plausible (even if it is unlikely) explanation for your positive test result (you know, like ingesting tainted meat from the EU).
- The sport's authorities are corrupt enough to cover up the problem. [for some. creating an "unfair" playing field]
- The sports authorities are corrupt enough to be bought off. [ditto]

You can argue all these things and still see riders that use dope as cheaters.

And this one, in particular, I actually think is rather important for a fair system, if we ever get one, rather than ridicule it:

- You can't prove I doped in a court of law.

(yes, someone who cheats but gets away with it is still a cheat, but....) "Beyond reasonable doubt" is kinda holy to me. We should never ever accept that people's careers and income sources can be blown up through a false positive. The rules ought to be so good that this is at the core. So if you cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt, it means no-one has enough to "know for sure".

On the other hand, samples should be stored for much longer, and can be revisited time and time again when detection methods improve (to fair values).

Actually, if we are really getting into terrain where it becomes quite possible that some rules have this effect, you take one argument away why people shouldn't say "well, in that case I might as well cheat and see how long I get away with it as I simply cannot survive close scrutiny, even if I am innocent". Going for second place overall and giving away stage victories seems to be the perfect strategy to win the Tour now, thanks to the current rule set, and testing regime in place, where the #1 gets to walk underneath a closer loupe than most. Well done Andy!

I also object to riders who have to prove that they did not cheat when we are talking about trace values that can be picked up by hyper sensitive equipment that wasn't around when the rules were written (when a positive by definition was as the result of a "high" value).

Right now, we are facing the rather insane situation that cheats are almost more protected by having generous values at the top end of some very effective drugs. but now we suddenly are able to detect micro micro levels (applied to one or two athletes only), we enforce rules that have an absolute zero for other ones, without even knowing what levels can be picked up by even the most careful riders, simply because they are alive in the modern micro-polluted 21st century.

 

[carl spackler]

you dont win
yo do win

 

[Berzin]

I also object to riders who have to prove that they did not cheat when we are talking about trace values that can be picked up by hyper sensitive equipment that wasn't around when the rules were written (when a positive by definition was as the result of a "high" value).

Right now, we are facing the rather insane situation that cheats are almost more protected by having generous values at the top end of some very effective drugs. but now we suddenly are able to detect micro micro levels (applied to one or two athletes only), we enforce rules that have an absolute zero for other ones, without even knowing what levels can be picked up by even the most careful riders, simply because they are alive in the modern micro-polluted 21st century.

The OP's intention was to bait Contador fans into playing this game of "Spot the Hypocrite". Too bad for him that Francois the Postman wrote the above statement clarifying the nonsense.

And to think this is going to take upwards of 6 plus months if not more to decide, with some governing bodies waiting in the wings to take the matter to court if they disagree with the penalty they believe Contador should receive.

To be banned for two years for a meaningless amount of clenbutarol, using a test many times more sensitive than other riders were subjected to is ludicrous. There are a few people on this site who, citing the love Armstrong gets from the haters, point out the glaring and rather obvious hypocrisy in liking one rider over another when they both doped, but both cases are as different as night and day.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Where are the commies??!!!

 

[The Hitch]

I think the one that holds the most truth would be:

Its not cheating if your not a cyclist.

 

[Andynonomous]

I think the one that holds the most truth would be:

Its not cheating if your not a cyclist.

I don't know if that was aimed at me, but I am a recreational cyclist (Although I don't have much interest in competitive cycling).

I cycle 10 km per day when there is no snow on the ground .

 

[Andynonomous]

The OP's intention was to bait Contador fans into playing this game of "Spot the Hypocrite". Too bad for him that Francois the Postman wrote the above statement clarifying the nonsense.

And to think this is going to take upwards of 6 plus months if not more to decide, with some governing bodies waiting in the wings to take the matter to court if they disagree with the penalty they believe Contador should receive.

To be banned for two years for a meaningless amount is clenbutarol that only he and maybe a few others were tested for is ludicrous. There are a few people on this site who, citing the love Armstrong gets from the haters, point out the glaring and rather obvious hypocrisy in liking one rider over another when they both doped, but both cases are as different as night and day.

I am "baiting" the fans of many athletes, that are in denial.

There are more points directed at Armstrong supporters than any other athlete (and some that are directed at fans of athletes in other sports as well).

Anyway, the post was made "tongue in cheek", as the Green smiley suggests.

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

I think the one that holds the most truth would be:

Its not cheating if your not a cyclist.

That happen's to be the Quote of the day. It certainly hold's alot of truth. Love the irony.

 

[Andynonomous]

It's not cheating, if you are not one of us (only fans of competitive cycling can designate who is cheating, and who isn't).

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

It's not cheating if you have a dog.

Thank God! I had begun to fear for Cadel...

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

It's not cheating... it's sport. I am sure that you will eventually figure that out.

Posted by Ultimobici

"Fixed it for you."

You absolutely did!

For me it is simple... either be a fan, or do not be a fan. To think that any sport will change on a time line coordinated with your righteous indignation because you are a fan?... uhh, No! The sport will change as fan pressure waxes or wanes, but expect the pace to be glacial. Those fans ahead of the curve are doomed to a life of frustration, and posting here in the "Clinic".

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

It's not cheating... it's sport. I am sure that you will eventually figure that out.

Fixed it for you.[/QUOTE

You absolutely did!

For me it is simple... either be a fan, or do not be a fan. To think that any sport will change on a time line coordinated with your righteous indignation because you are a fan?... uhh, No! The sport will change as fan pressure waxes or wanes, but expect the pace to be glacial. Those fans ahead of the curve are doomed to a life of frustration, and posting here in the "Clinic".

 

[Andynonomous]

It's not cheating, if I claim that the accusers are self-righteous.

It's not cheating, until the authorities are given a few decades to clean it up.


Keep them coming.

 

[ergmonkey]

My buddies assure me that, if ever caught, I should argue that it's not cheating if:

-it happened in another state;
-the lights were off;
-I was on vacation;
-I was really drunk;
-I was really thinking of her; or
-I didn't enjoy it that much.

So, why is this thread in the Clinic?