Millar whinging on doping ban for Olympics!

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
No, just find it very tedious getting into it with a fanboy. Life is too short and you are too boring. Like I don't deal with Flicker, Polish et al for the same reasons. But never mind, I am sure someone will be impressed by your use of bold and ability to use the quote feature.

As for Vaughters, when he and Millar actually do more than talk the talk then I'll be impressed. Until then they are just bull**** artists and upholders of omerta with better PR than Armstrong.
If you refuse to read what I write than it is your problem that you continue to show your ignorance to my views on JV and Garmin - your problem, not mine.
 
...And the Messiah/Satan dichotomy reasserts itself. Nobody is allowed to be genuinely anti-doping unless they agree with us strategically. There can be no honest tactical disagreements, there are only charlatans and con men.

Out of curiousity, Mrs John, blackcat and Benotti, are there any teams in the peloton which you do believe to be largely clean?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Zinoviev Letter said:
...And the Messiah/Satan dichotomy reasserts itself. Nobody is allowed to be genuinely anti-doping unless they agree with us strategically. There can be no honest tactical disagreements, there are only charlatans and con men.

Out of curiousity, Mrs John, blackcat and Benotti, are there any teams in the peloton which you do believe to be largely clean?
nothing of the sort. I just dont like being lied to. I resent it. And Vaughters is one who is given a wide berth, but I think it is fraudulent.

None at the pointy end are clean. None. And every team has a team leader by definition.

It is the red queen effect in play, and professionally, sport is about one thing, one thing only, that is winning.

Now it does sell mythology, that it does, those are the economics, that is on the meta level.

But even for fencing, or chess, or archery, folks will look to exploit any advantage, its the nature of competition. I am thoroughly with Prof Julian Savulescu on this. I just dont accept the duplicity which ultimately is to foster positive economic factors.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Zinoviev Letter said:
...And the Messiah/Satan dichotomy reasserts itself. Nobody is allowed to be genuinely anti-doping unless they agree with us strategically. There can be no honest tactical disagreements, there are only charlatans and con men.

Out of curiousity, Mrs John, blackcat and Benotti, are there any teams in the peloton which you do believe to be largely clean?
I am not sure that there are any.

What I object to is teams and management lying to us, what I object to is teams using anti-doping as a PR strategy. What I object to is teams exploiting fans by selling us snake oil. He's no different to Riis or the Hog.

Blackcat - check out the concept of Ketman.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
I am not sure that there are any.

What I object to is teams and management lying to us, what I object to is teams using anti-doping as a PR strategy. What I object to is teams exploiting fans by selling us snake oil. He's no different to Riis or the Hog.

Blackcat - check out the concept of Ketman.
Well actually - (IMO) JVs position would be worse than Riis or Bruyneel who have never made any meaningful anti-doping statements.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
True about the media and 'sensational' or inaccurate headlines. True that it is done by the editing staff.
False that you then change the headline. That isn't even acceptable here on a forum.

Again - nothing in the linked article suggested Garmin were looking to change the sport from within. As I have said Garmin JV etc are only responsible for what they can control which is their own team.
i dont see anywhere did i suggest or hint at changing the headline. They could have simply dropped it altogether as it was sensationalist and not at all accurate to what was written in the article. They could have titled it with 'Article, VoaNews, 2008-06-30' but 'as i said' chose to use the sensationalism.

To change headlines is not acceptable. But to mislead is also unacceptable.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Benotti69 said:
i dont see anywhere did i suggest or hint at changing the headline. They could have simply dropped it altogether as it was sensationalist and not at all accurate to what was written in the article. They could have titled it with 'Article, VoaNews, 2008-06-30' but 'as i said' chose to use the sensationalism.

To change headlines is not acceptable. But to mislead is also unacceptable.
That explains it perfectly.

If Garmin (SS) changed the headline it would be unacceptable.
VoAnews write a 'misleading' and 'unacceptable' headline - but its really Garmin SS fault for not changing the headline (even though that would be unacceptable).
 
blackcat said:
nothing of the sort. I just dont like being lied to. I resent it. And Vaughters is one who is given a wide berth, but I think it is fraudulent.

None at the pointy end are clean. None. And every team has a team leader by definition.

It is the red queen effect in play, and professionally, sport is about one thing, one thing only, that is winning.
So your view is that nobody who matters is clean and that this is true in all major professional sports. Your objection is not to doping (which is inevitable and universal at the top end of the field) but to people who proclaim themselves anti-doping while being at the "pointy end", which by definition makes them liars and charlatans?
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
I am not sure that there are any.

What I object to is teams and management lying to us, what I object to is teams using anti-doping as a PR strategy.
Blackcat's perspective seems to be that Garmin is a con because any successful team in professional sport must, by definition, be doping and therefore taking a prominent anti-doping stance in such a position, again by definition, makes you a liar and a charlatan.

I don't agree with this point of view, but it at least has the merit of some internal consistency. On what basis exactly are you making the same assumptions about Garmin?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
we have seen Wigans make implausible improvements, Tyler Farrar be the winningest rider besides Cav in the peloton, and Vande Velde recover from his hip break to ride high into the top ten, 7 weeks out.

Merely incredulous are their performances, they are not gonna be as pure as their marketing literature espouses
 
blackcat said:
we have seen Wigans make implausible improvements, Tyler Farrar be the winningest rider besides Cav in the peloton, and Vande Velde recover from his hip break to ride high into the top ten, 7 weeks out.

Merely incredulous are their performances, they are not gonna be as pure as their marketing literature espouses
Hang on a second. Why do you need any of these justifications when from your perspective by definition any team which is winning serious professional races on any kind of regular basis is doping? Surely, you'd be convinced that they were doping even if none of those particular performances had occurred?
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Zinoviev Letter said:
Blackcat's perspective seems to be that Garmin is a con because any successful team in professional sport must, by definition, be doping and therefore taking a prominent anti-doping stance in such a position, again by definition, makes you a liar and a charlatan.

I don't agree with this point of view, but it at least has the merit of some internal consistency. On what basis exactly are you making the same assumptions about Garmin?
I am not sure what you are asking me.

I used to think that Vaughters and Garmin were as good as their word, but now I don't.

Why don't I believe Vaughters anymore? Because his public actions do not tally with his public pronouncements. I think his 'oh but I can't tell you' is patronising and insulting. The upshot of that is that as far as I can tell the guff about 'clean racing' is just a marketing ploy designed to trap the gullible who see him as a breath of fresh air compared with Riis, Hog and McQuaid.

There is obviously the Lim and Matt White issues as well

I don't believe he genuinely has any interest in clean racing, either in his team or in general. He nor his riders have any desire to break omerta - as Millar so clearly exemplifies. I am sick to death of Millar telling us 'we have to believe in X'. I'm sick of Millar sticking the boot into the likes of Landis from behind the fig leaf of being anti-doping while defending the likes of Dertie, Vino, Armstrong (till recently), Piepoli etc

Millar needs to STFU, and Vaughters needs to man up.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
That explains it perfectly.

If Garmin (SS) changed the headline it would be unacceptable.
VoAnews write a 'misleading' and 'unacceptable' headline - but its really Garmin SS fault for not changing the headline (even though that would be unacceptable).
I never said they should change it, to repeat in case you missed my last post as well i never said they should change it, they could leave it out as it is extremely misleading. they could merely quote the publisher, VoAnews and date of publication. If they wanted to go further. First sentence of the article.

Slipstream are culpable of misleading they are changing the sport for leaving it on their website with a non working link. Otherwise the fan is left with a headline stating they are changing the whole of the sport, which they are not, far from it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I never said they should change it, to repeat in case you missed my last post as well i never said they should change it, they could leave it out as it is extremely misleading. they could merely quote the publisher, VoAnews and date of publication. If they wanted to go further. First sentence of the article.

Slipstream are culpable for leaving it on their website with a non working link. Otherwise the fan is left with a headline stating they are changing the whole of the sport, which they are not, far from it.
Wouldn't "leaving out" a headline or "merely quoting" the article instead of the headline actually be changing the headline?

Obviously Slipstream..... actually no, lets blame Vaughters - sits at home sipping wine and constantly checks all links from articles written 3 years ago. Then when the link does not work he just sits there ... drinking.
And doesn't do anything. What a bad man.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Wouldn't "leaving out" a headline or "merely quoting" the article instead of the headline actually be changing the headline?
from where i am sitting sipping montepulciano leaving it out is not changing anything it is leaving it out, quoting the article is not changing anything but quoting the article.

Dr. Maserati said:
Obviously Slipstream..... actually no, lets blame Vaughters - sits at home sipping wine and constantly checks all links from articles written 3 years ago. Then when the link does not work he just sits there ... drinking.
And doesn't do anything. What a bad man.
For JV who is quite specific with his use of language when discussing himself, his past doping and his team i would imagine he would have disapproved of the headline from the get go and instructed that it not be used as it was very misleading or on the other hand maybe he loved that they had spouted it as he could say i didn't say it if anyone took him to task on it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Benotti69 said:
from where i am sitting sipping montepulciano leaving it out is not changing anything it is leaving it out, quoting the article is not changing anything but quoting the article.


For JV who is quite specific with his use of language when discussing himself, his past doping and his team i would imagine he would have disapproved of the headline from the get go and instructed that it not be used as it was very misleading or on the other hand maybe he loved that they had spouted it as he could say i didn't say it if anyone took him to task on it.
Maybe you're right, perhaps JV didn't like the headline and set about hacking in to VoA (over a bottle of wine) and broke the link to VoA - maybe he was also going to change the headline but was too wasted - this is equally plausible.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY