Moderators

[the sceptic]

How about a flat two day ban for anyone who has been a member longer than 6 months discussing clinic things in the PRR section?

the absurdity of a sky believer calling Hushovd a doper is too much to bear. (if that was what you referred to)

 

[King Boonen]

the absurdity of a sky believer calling Hushovd a doper is too much to bear. (if that was what you referred to)

It's exactly what I'm referring to. The only point of it is to derail a thread. Ebandit is perfectly aware of the rules, as are many others who flount them, an instant ban may actually stop them doing it.

 

[ebandit]

thanks

Ebandit is perfectly aware of the rules,

thanks! I am perfectly entitled to say.........'never liked thor...glad he's retiring'

I have never accused thor or discussed doping in prr

Mark L

 

[King Boonen]

thanks! I am perfectly entitled to say.........'never liked thor...glad he's retiring'

I have never accused thor or discussed doping in prr

Mark L

Yes, but that's not what you said. You made sly references to the "new era" and it was very obvious what you meant however you want to try and paint it now.

 

[ebandit]

double

double entendre

Mark L

 

[Zam_Olyas]

ebandit is not the only one and will not be the last one either, i think we have all been guilty as well, me especially when talking about velasco contador, i used to make sly references before but not now..i think ...and the froome discussion thread is full of that i think i.e. sly references about doping in the PRR section of cyclingnews forum where berzin is a mod and the site where benson is the boss who in turned is owned by future publishing.

edit: and a forum where thehog is well....thehog.

 

[Ferminal]

The idea that you can separate doping out of cycling discussions is ridiculous. The Clinic was created because the only pro road forum was flooded by doping (Armstrong) discussions and it was the best thing that ever happened. The Clinic was not created to make the other forum a 100% sterile area and trying to pretend that it is does no one any favours. The odd one liner, baiting or back and forth is completely understandable and should be tolerated especially in the immediate aftermath of impressive performances. Prolonged domination of threads by said discussions is all that should be targeted.

and yeh, Hushovd was a doper.

 

[King Boonen]

The idea that you can separate doping out of cycling discussions is ridiculous. The Clinic was created because the only pro road forum was flooded by doping (Armstrong) discussions and it was the best thing that ever happened. The Clinic was not created to make the other forum a 100% sterile area and trying to pretend that it is does no one any favours. The odd one liner, baiting or back and forth is completely understandable and should be tolerated especially in the immediate aftermath of impressive performances. Prolonged domination of threads by said discussions is all that should be targeted.

and yeh, Hushovd was a doper.

I'm sorry but it's very easy. You want to discuss doping, go to the clinic, I don't see how that is difficult. Why should baiting be tolerated? That's ridiculous.

Of course you can separate it, it's really not difficult. What is a pain is having to wade through the stupid innuendo an oblique references which shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[darwin553]

The idea that you can separate doping out of cycling discussions is ridiculous. The Clinic was created because the only pro road forum was flooded by doping (Armstrong) discussions and it was the best thing that ever happened. The Clinic was not created to make the other forum a 100% sterile area and trying to pretend that it is does no one any favours. The odd one liner, baiting or back and forth is completely understandable and should be tolerated especially in the immediate aftermath of impressive performances. Prolonged domination of threads by said discussions is all that should be targeted.

and yeh, Hushovd was a doper.

I agree somewhat. However, what I would say is that any "one liner, baiting or back and forth" that brings up doping as a necessary consequence of your argument needs to be done so not based on rumour or innuendo, however strong that may be, but based on sanctions that have actually been applied against the said rider you are discussing. This is a very important distinction that should be enforced.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes of course you can, and make an already straighjacketed forum even more so. Doping is part of the sport and you worked that out long ago. A vast number of people who watch the sport are going to have reactions in a doping context, if you want a forum which is in real-time representative of what people think then you need some tolerance and flexibility. I'm not speaking for me personally as I don't feel the need or will make it vague or hide it.

To be honest it has usually been handled well in the past and only the serial baiters are cracked down on. Of course the stricter you become the more effective the baiting is.

 

[Ferminal]

I agree somewhat. However, what I would say is that any "one liner, baiting or back and forth" that brings up doping as a necessary consequence of your argument needs to be done so not based on rumour or innuendo, however strong that may be, but based on sanctions that have actually been applied against the said rider you are discussing. This is a very important distinction that should be enforced.

Well considering you don't find out about sanctions until months/years after the fact it's kind of hard if the posts concerned are reacting to events as they happen.

 

[darwin553]

Well considering you don't find out about sanctions until months/years after the fact it's kind of hard if the posts concerned are reacting to events as they happen.

That is just too bad then - in the clinic it should go then.

 

[ebandit]

Lol

oh dear! I posted reply that 'could' be read either way............but to describe it as 'doping talk'....................LOL

'Just a reminder that doping talk is not allowed in this section. Such references will be deleted and users may be subject to sanctions.'

Mark L

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Can something be done about every clinic thread becoming a Sky conspiricy thread? Especially with the Kreuziger thread now, it is getting too hard to read actual content

 

[Afrank]

I agree, just posted a reminder to keep discussion about Kreuziger (will carry more weight coming from a mod).

 

[King Boonen]

I agree, just posted a reminder to keep discussion about Kreuziger (will carry more weight coming from a mod).

And it's worked so well...

 

[hrotha]

What's frustrating is that it's obvious 90% of the conspiracy talk is motivated by either fanboyism or resentment towards Sky. Even if the premise is rational, the discussion itself is irrational and pointless.

 

[King Boonen]

The most annoying thing is it's people who do it constantly in other threads and know better. There should be no need for a warning to 90% of clinic posters and it should be simple for the clinic to self-police things like this. The fact that both a mod and an administrator have asked people to keep on topic and it has been completely ignored should not go unnoticed.

And it's not just the Skybots and Fantadors. I understand that when someone like JV posts people are desperate to engage him, but it's instantly sent the thread on yet another tangent with people trying to stick the knife in and pick apart everything he's ever said.

If anyone actually wants to discuss Kreuziger now the only real option is to start a new thread.

 

[Mellow Velo]

What's frustrating is that it's obvious 90% of the conspiracy talk is motivated by either fanboyism or resentment towards Sky. Even if the premise is rational, the discussion itself is irrational and pointless.

Thanks for trying anyway. I found your posts both interesting and informative.
This was a very important piece of breaking news.
It is a terrible shame that the usual suspects feel compelled to make yet more mockery and derail the thread.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I agree, just posted a reminder to keep discussion about Kreuziger (will carry more weight coming from a mod).

I think you might be somewhat delusional there.

 

[Granville57]

I would like to ask a mod to please move this thread into The Clinic.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9263&page=4

It's a very old thread that I bumped due to its title being relevant to the new topic. But I had no intentions of attracting the collective brain trust of the PRR section into the conversation. I had mistakenly assumed that it was a Clinic thread when I bumped it.

Thank You.

 

[hiero2]

I would like to ask a mod to please move this thread into The Clinic.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9263&page=4

It's a very old thread that I bumped due to its title being relevant to the new topic. But I had no intentions of attracting the collective brain trust of the PRR section into the conversation. I had mistakenly assumed that it was a Clinic thread when I bumped it.

Thank You.

Personally - I think it could stay put. The topic has not gone to doping in particular. Some rather vague side references, but it hasn't gone OT or crazy. Just my .02.

 

[Granville57]

I won the internets tonight!

 

[Granville57]

I won the internets tonight!

 

[Ventoux Boar]

The casual racial slurs, misogyny (how can adults tolerate the bile spewed at Michelle Cound?), and neanderthal references to sexuality in The Clinic are completely out of order.

Why has self-policing failed so dismally?