Moderators

[Afrank]

Let's try to keep it civil guys.

 

[RedheadDane]

Your everyone dopes line is the other end of the extreme though. It's as simplistic as saying everyone is clean.

Which, I'd like to point out, I don't do. At least not anymore...
There is a prize involved; of course there are people doping. I just don't think it's right to let a few - and I do think it's just a few, now - idiots win...

 

[martinvickers]

You not posting in it would be a good start.

Sucks to be you, then, doesn't it?

 

[Beech Mtn]

Hi mods, have you read the Froome Talk Only thread (since Wednesday evening CEST)?

Or is everything just fine there, and as such can be used as standards as to what is acceptable all over the forum?

Can we get an answer to Netserk's question? I see a gentle reprimand in this thread, but nothing in the Froome thread.

 

[del1962]

WHy did the David Millar shoes thread have to close, it was an important investigive thread?

 

[EnacheV]

Oh quit being a troll and an idiot

thanks

i reported this post

lets see

 

[Hugh Januss]

Which, I'd like to point out, I don't do. At least not anymore...
There is a prize involved; of course there are people doping. I just don't think it's right to let a few - and I do think it's just a few, now - idiots win...

There is just not any good reason to assume it is just a few now. The testing is as easy to beat as ever, maybe easier with the Biopassport safe limits of doping template. The incentive to dope certainly has not diminished and all of the doping enablers, Doctors, DS's, coaches, are still in business, still running things. Clean cycling is a great dream, but at this point that's all it is.

 

[the sceptic]

thanks

i reported this post

lets see

 

[Mellow Velo]

The vast majority of the discussion has nothing to do with Froome?

Par for the course.
The vast majority of what is posted in the Clinic has nothing to do with doping.
P*ss taking, on the other hand......

 

[BigMac]

There is just not any good reason to assume it is just a few now. The testing is as easy to beat as ever, maybe easier with the Biopassport safe limits of doping template. The incentive to dope certainly has not diminished and all of the doping enablers, Doctors, DS's, coaches, are still in business, still running things. Clean cycling is a great dream, but at this point that's all it is.

You see, some people (RHD for instance) prefer to think not all riders, or most, are ******bags who will do everything to win. And I think she's right.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You see, some people (RHD for instance) prefer to think not all riders, or most, are ******bags who will do everything to win. And I think she's right.

What does that really matter when the people running the teams are, and have done?

 

[BigMac]

What does that really matter when the people running the teams are, and have done?

Well, one would think those riders have a decent moral integrity and wouldn't dope just because their DS's tell them to. And you're talking about a dymension so big such thing just couldn't be kept secret between 200+ people. Eventually those who are not fkd up in the head or simply do not agree would snitch.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well, one would think those riders have a decent moral integrity and wouldn't dope just because their DS's tell them to. And you're talking about a dymension so big such thing just couldn't be kept secret between 200+ people. Eventually those who are not fkd up in the head or simply do not agree would snitch.

Interesting theory. So you are saying that you think that the omerta and the nearly pandemic level of doping in the past has been somehow replaced by a peloton wide belief that results and the money they bring is not as important as playing nicely together? Further this new generation of "it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game" pro athletes has the gumption to stand up to the likes of Riis, Bruyneel, Ochowicz etal and say sod the results I'm not cheating and you can't replace me with someone who will.
Can I interest you in a lightly used Bridge in a large and well know US metropolis?

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right. I just don't see it.

 

[BigMac]

Interesting theory. So you are saying that you think that the omerta and the nearly pandemic level of doping in the past has been somehow replaced by a peloton wide belief that results and the money they bring is not as important as playing nicely together? Further this new generation of "it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game" pro athletes has the gumption to stand up to the likes of Riis, Bruyneel, Ochowicz etal and say sod the results I'm not cheating and you can't replace me with someone who will.
Can I interest you in a lightly used Bridge in a large and well know US metropolis?

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right. I just don't see it.

I clearly don't have the knowledge regarding doping on the peloton to be able to argue with you, it just seems bizarre to me that there's no one in the peloton with his moral compass intact enough to denounce such situations. The scale of what you talk is so big it seems impossible. Like a mafia protected by a code of honor, the problem being the improbability of an entirely mafioso peloton. Maybe I'm just being that ingenuous.

 

[Afrank]

Hi mods, have you read the Froome Talk Only thread (since Wednesday evening CEST)?

Or is everything just fine there, and as such can be used as standards as to what is acceptable all over the forum?

Nothing really that requires a mod message to get back on topic. The things being discussed in it recently among other things were if there are any other riders with as big and sudden a breakthrough as Froome and Cound and her tweets (Froome thread is as good a place as any to discuss his fiance).

So nothing seriously off topic IMO.

 

[Granville57]

How the hell does BigMac do that thing he does with his avatar?

 

[hiero2]

I clearly don't have the knowledge regarding doping on the peloton to be able to argue with you, it just seems bizarre to me that there's no one in the peloton with his moral compass intact enough to denounce such situations. The scale of what you talk is so big it seems impossible. Like a mafia protected by a code of honor, the problem being the improbability of an entirely mafioso peloton. Maybe I'm just being that ingenuous.

I do not believe you are being disingenous. Nor ingenous. I think you have a very good point. And I tend to subscribe to something like your view on this. Why?

Well, fact 1 - we know that dopage was pandemic in the 90's, and continued in a very strong manner until quite recent history.

Fact 2 - we know that anti-doping testing finally started catching up with the major drugs of choice. Somewhere around 2000. Somebody will correct this, I'm sure.

Fact 3 - we know that before the testing started catching up, we had testing for blatant evidence of the RESULTS of doping - the hematocrit levels.

Ok - so we start with doping as Fignon described it, derisory. Oh, sure, Anquetil said you had to have it - but there were plenty of riders who disagreed, and I think it is obvious you could be at the pointy end of the results, and not be doped.

Next, we move to fantastic results, and easy to avoid the testing. Early 90's. The pro peloton moves into doping en masse. Then we move to a little harder to avoid the testing - the dopers have to take more precautions, follow the regimen more closely. Some riders are able to move away from the mass doping.

Then we have the possibility of testing actually detecting the major operating drugs and treatment plans. Now riders who dope must follow regimens even MORE closely. Discipline has to be high.

Based on nature, and the nature of man, we would expect that MORE riders would now avoid the dopage as much as possible. Thus, we logically would have a trend AWAY from 'en masse' dopage. Of course, logic does not dictate reality. Everything in reality could be quite contrary to the logic I put forth. But, we continue to see evidence that, in this case, logic and reality meet.

Fact 4 - even during the WORST years of mass doping - there were people who spoke out. They weren't believed, they were ridiculed, they were scorned. But they spoke out.

Fact 5 - today we have fewer people 'speaking out' as Betsy Andreu did - or the counted others who also did.

Fact 6 - today we have anti-doping agency action - real action - against known dopers.

Put that all together? Especially #5, and I feel confident in concluding that there are two possibilities. Either:

A. Omerta is stronger than ever, and has now attained a fervent religious cult status amongst pro bikers. Or,
B. Most of the riders who say they are not doping today are being honest.

Since "A" flies in the face of my experience with human behavior, I pick "B".

 

[Hugh Januss]

I clearly don't have the knowledge regarding doping on the peloton to be able to argue with you, it just seems bizarre to me that there's no one in the peloton with his moral compass intact enough to denounce such situations. The scale of what you talk is so big it seems impossible. Like a mafia protected by a code of honor, the problem being the improbability of an entirely mafioso peloton. Maybe I'm just being that ingenuous.

I am sure there are those, even some on the "anti-doping teams" but the thing about a small results based group like pro cycling and highly effective doping like what goes on in pro sports is that the first group is effectively limited by the second item. Not that many guys who are staunchly anti-doping ever make it to the pro tour level. Sure some do and they are happy as clams to be there, but why should even they try to make too much of a fuss, they are employed.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'd like to be the first to congratulate MartinVickers, the new moderator. Constantly telling people off and bossing people around suits him to the ground.

Chapeau!

 

[The Hitch]

I do not believe you are being disingenous. Nor ingenous. I think you have a very good point. And I tend to subscribe to something like your view on this. Why?

Well, fact 1 - we know that dopage was pandemic in the 90's, and continued in a very strong manner until quite recent history.

Fact 2 - we know that anti-doping testing finally started catching up with the major drugs of choice. Somewhere around 2000. Somebody will correct this, I'm sure.

Fact 3 - we know that before the testing started catching up, we had testing for blatant evidence of the RESULTS of doping - the hematocrit levels.

Ok - so we start with doping as Fignon described it, derisory. Oh, sure, Anquetil said you had to have it - but there were plenty of riders who disagreed, and I think it is obvious you could be at the pointy end of the results, and not be doped.

Next, we move to fantastic results, and easy to avoid the testing. Early 90's. The pro peloton moves into doping en masse. Then we move to a little harder to avoid the testing - the dopers have to take more precautions, follow the regimen more closely. Some riders are able to move away from the mass doping.

Then we have the possibility of testing actually detecting the major operating drugs and treatment plans. Now riders who dope must follow regimens even MORE closely. Discipline has to be high.

Based on nature, and the nature of man, we would expect that MORE riders would now avoid the dopage as much as possible. Thus, we logically would have a trend AWAY from 'en masse' dopage. Of course, logic does not dictate reality. Everything in reality could be quite contrary to the logic I put forth. But, we continue to see evidence that, in this case, logic and reality meet.

Fact 4 - even during the WORST years of mass doping - there were people who spoke out. They weren't believed, they were ridiculed, they were scorned. But they spoke out.

Fact 5 - today we have fewer people 'speaking out' as Betsy Andreu did - or the counted others who also did.

Fact 6 - today we have anti-doping agency action - real action - against known dopers.

Put that all together? Especially #5, and I feel confident in concluding that there are two possibilities. Either:

A. Omerta is stronger than ever, and has now attained a fervent religious cult status amongst pro bikers. Or,
B. Most of the riders who say they are not doping today are being honest.

Since "A" flies in the face of my experience with human behavior, I pick "B".

Classic layman mistake when approaching anti doping of simplifying absolutely everything to a ridiculous level, then picking out a few hand chosen "facts", ignoring others, to fit a preheld conclusion, often utopian, and yours certainly is.


They are hardly facts even. Fact 5 "today we have fewer people 'speaking out". That's a fact now? Did you do some research into that? Do you have tables that show how many people spoke out every year and have you converted those into graphs that show the trend? Since you called it a "fact", i'm assuming you weren't just talking about your own impression.

Testing catching up to doping is also questionable, and who knows where you plucked the 2000 figure out of. Doping caught up to some drugs quick, others never. Its not black and white.

And like many people who argue the sport is clean because its what they hope is true rather than because theyve been convinced by the evidence, you seem totally unaware of the fact that dopers and doping techniques can evolve too. Instead you act as if doping is static.

The either or options you offer at the end, are hardly the only ones available either.
Btw did you really offer "nature of man" as an argument for why people wouldn't dope?

 

[RetroActive]

I clearly don't have the knowledge regarding doping on the peloton to be able to argue with you, it just seems bizarre to me that there's no one in the peloton with his moral compass intact enough to denounce such situations. The scale of what you talk is so big it seems impossible. Like a mafia protected by a code of honor, the problem being the improbability of an entirely mafioso peloton. Maybe I'm just being that ingenuous.

The 'weeds' get pulled early in the garden of greatness. Those tenacious enough to endure but not play the game simply get choked out of the light by the faster growing trees.

Every workplace has conditions, and unspeakables. We're herd animals and those that don't get with the program...

 

[del1962]

I do not believe you are being disingenous. Nor ingenous. I think you have a very good point. And I tend to subscribe to something like your view on this. Why?

Well, fact 1 - we know that dopage was pandemic in the 90's, and continued in a very strong manner until quite recent history.

Fact 2 - we know that anti-doping testing finally started catching up with the major drugs of choice. Somewhere around 2000. Somebody will correct this, I'm sure.

Fact 3 - we know that before the testing started catching up, we had testing for blatant evidence of the RESULTS of doping - the hematocrit levels.

Ok - so we start with doping as Fignon described it, derisory. Oh, sure, Anquetil said you had to have it - but there were plenty of riders who disagreed, and I think it is obvious you could be at the pointy end of the results, and not be doped.

Next, we move to fantastic results, and easy to avoid the testing. Early 90's. The pro peloton moves into doping en masse. Then we move to a little harder to avoid the testing - the dopers have to take more precautions, follow the regimen more closely. Some riders are able to move away from the mass doping.

Then we have the possibility of testing actually detecting the major operating drugs and treatment plans. Now riders who dope must follow regimens even MORE closely. Discipline has to be high.

Based on nature, and the nature of man, we would expect that MORE riders would now avoid the dopage as much as possible. Thus, we logically would have a trend AWAY from 'en masse' dopage. Of course, logic does not dictate reality. Everything in reality could be quite contrary to the logic I put forth. But, we continue to see evidence that, in this case, logic and reality meet.

Fact 4 - even during the WORST years of mass doping - there were people who spoke out. They weren't believed, they were ridiculed, they were scorned. But they spoke out.

Fact 5 - today we have fewer people 'speaking out' as Betsy Andreu did - or the counted others who also did.

Fact 6 - today we have anti-doping agency action - real action - against known dopers.

Put that all together? Especially #5, and I feel confident in concluding that there are two possibilities. Either:

A. Omerta is stronger than ever, and has now attained a fervent religious cult status amongst pro bikers. Or,
B. Most of the riders who say they are not doping today are being honest.

Since "A" flies in the face of my experience with human behavior, I pick "B".

I think yours and BigMac's post to which you reply are sogood they probably deserve there own thread or perhaps should go in on the record.

 

[Netserk]

Nothing really that requires a mod message to get back on topic. The things being discussed in it recently among other things were if there are any other riders with as big and sudden a breakthrough as Froome and Cound and her tweets (Froome thread is as good a place as any to discuss his fiance).

So nothing seriously off topic IMO.

I wasn't talking about off topic. I take your answer as a "yes everything is fine there, and as such can be used as standard as to what is allowed everywhere"

 

[Eshnar]

I think yours and BigMac's post to which you reply are sogood they probably deserve there own thread or perhaps should go in on the record.

And surely this is not the right place for them. Feel free to start another thread about that guys, and let this one come back on topic

 

[blackcat]

Problem is some (blackcat) actually believe they can tell who is doping judging by their facial construct, and the Dels and parkers of this world, always looking for any excuse to tarnish the whole clinic, immediately jump on such a thread to try to discredit the entire clinic as a place where everyone thinks a bigger jaw is 100% proof of doping.

anh, that is not what i have actually said.

and that is a confirmation bias.

you need to baseline the natural profile, which is IMPOSSIBLE, and then the comparison. As they say in eco101, ceteris paribus.

what i did do however, was come up with a working thesis, this hypothetical,

a photographer/cinematographer, shooting with the same lens, and same lighting, and same viewing production, (plasma/lcd/led) v the old tv, or other film/newsprint,

compare an entire peloton in 1980 v 2010. Then, you remove pointing a finger at an individual.

Instead of smearing me, why not try it on JV, he talked about heads growing and balls shrinking.