Moderators

[Dazed and Confused]

I dont understand why you would want that, nor why you and Brodeal want to keep giving this other place, free advertisement all the time, by constantly mentioning it.

First of all, keeping opposite opinions away is always dangerous. Now a lot of the pro Sky arguments imo are stupid as is being demonstrated tonight, but so are some of the anti ones i have read on here from some. Either way even if they are wrong, opposite opinions are essential in polishing ones own opinions. Arguments become weak when isolated from opposition, since there is no one to point out flaws. Ive personally moderated many of my own views over the years due to counterarguments, eg I used to believe doping was more prevalent in cycling today than I do now.

But from a pragamitic side I don't think it would be good for your position at all if pro sky opinions left for this other place you bring up.

The Clinic has prestige as the centre for cycling doping discussion and possibly doping discussion in general on the internet. A place where all opinions are welcome and all manner of debate takes place. News gets posted, as it wont be anywhere else (new tests, new interviews with experts- they get no attention in the media), people come to ask questions.

Both a cause and a concequence of this prestige is the fact that a number of people well known with connections in the cycling world have come here.

Betsy posted here, and continues to occasionally pop in. Mike Anderson posted here, and continues to post here, even if not in the clinic.
JV came here a number of times. Race Radio posts here, a lot. To a lesser extent Festinagirl and others.
That they have all posted multiple posts over multiple years speaks to the size of the internet forum.

Now the clinic, already happens to lie more on the suspicion side. I would argue that the reason for this is the same reason why Mike Ashenden and **** Pound are suspicious - because we know a little bit about how doping works, here.

Why would you want to change that and politicize the clinic. It already, seems to annoy some of your more extreme opponents to no end that the clinic has this strong doubt against Sky and so much prestige. Which is why parker has adopted the term "asylum" (how Lance's fans used to refer to this place in 09-10) and tried to force it on the clinic as much as Mambo95 used to.
Ive seen on other sites some of the pro sky crowd seem to obsess about the clinic, discuss how dumb and deluded we are amongst themselves, and ive seen strong anti clinic rants on newspaper comments sections.

All because they know The Clinic is big. These people want all suspicion against their favourite riders silenced. And the way things are now, they don't like.

Weve seen plenty of sky defenders on this forum can behave with honour, even if some of what they post annoys me at times.

Leave the fringes to the fringes. Both sides. This is the clinic. Despite some romanticized nostalgia, namely from Bro Deal every few months, about how its all gone down the drain, strong as it ever was. I was here during the Armstrong wars and its more or less the same.

Open to all, and if anyone wants one sided discussions they can go to smaller circle jerk internet boards no one else visits.

Brilliant post.

 

[The Hitch]

If anyone actually thought vb was genuine, look at what I say, and look at how it immediately gets subtly twisted into something totally different he can try to get me with.

(We also have to remember that Froome benefits from an expensively assembled team...)

Peter Kennaugh was the second to last domestique. There are teams at continental level with more expensive second to last domestiques than Peter Kennaugh ffs.

Farcical point. On one thread Sky are Postal (2nd coming edition). Here Sky are no better than continentals.

Hours pass. Bait not taken.
Attempt 2

You did say something interesting a few pages back about the Sky Train being Conti grade compared to Movi.

Did I say sky were conti level compared to movi? The only reference to movistar comes in a totally different paragraph let alone sentence

Quintana had a better mountain train than Froome (end paragraph)

"Peter kennaugh was cheaper than continental domestiques" becomes -"you said continental teams are better than Sky- why did you say that" every single post can be jumped on and extended into something different.

And I'm not saying "ban him" or that he has broken rules by doing this, just showing how the poster works, in case anyone thought thought this really might be just a naive first time poster who only found his way to the clinic last week

 

[RownhamHill]

errrmmmmmm......


sorry I do have a life outside this ayslum

No need to apologise for not having a life outside of the Clinic, and actually if I'm coming across as mardy, I should actually say thanks for the time you take trying to moderate this place.

That all said. I'm willing to bet my house that even if you had time, or indeed at the point in the next week when you do have time to do some moderating, you will have no intention of going back and perma-banning anyone from that thread (and quite right too, I'm not actually advocating you do BTW). The point stands though that there is very clearly very inconsistent moderating of this forum that ultimately does it damage.

 

[pmcg76]

Well, if you were really interested you would have put your initial post in that thread.

What has now happened is actually pretty much on point of this thread, because it shows the mods the underlying intent that has been going on here.
In fact I read a post earlier by PMCG76 about how they rarely post here.

They have been a member since the very start, March 09, and are an excellent poster - even if we didn't always agree on a point, they remained civil and were very effective at posting their opinion or thoughts.

If the mods wanted to know what has happened to the forum - they would be a good poster to PM who could offer an objective assessment of the place.

Doc, I appreciate the comment but I am sure, most don't really care what others think but sure I will roll it out anyway for funsies.

My issue is not with poster's here who disagree with my point of view but with those who belong to what I call the 'sneering' group. Those who trot out the same old cliche's without ever offering any sort of analysis on a subject.

Also people who repeat the exact same thing over and over and over. Again no analysis, no insight, nothing, just the same few lines and phrases thrown out over and over again and no willingness to move from their set opinion.

Quite a few of the loudest poster's belong to what I call the sneering group and as they tend to dominate proceedings, that is why I have less interest in posting here. I would say I am neraly always reasoned but dealing with the sneering group does tend to bring out the worst in me. I think a quick look through the Dan Martin thread would illustrate that clearly.

I could have enjoyable debates with many poster's who I don't necessarily agree with(e.g Red Flanders in said thread) but they will nearly always be taken off course by others.

I don't really believe in Chris Froome and refrain from posting in SKY threads but the manner in which anyone who even remotely defends SKY/Froome are treated by the sneering crowd makes me almost want to defend SKY/Froome also. It's bad when the people you mostly agree with on an issue make you want to switch sides.

 

[kingjr]

Doc, I appreciate the comment but I am sure, most don't really care what others think but sure I will roll it out anyway for funsies.

My issue is not with poster's here who disagree with my point of view but with those who belong to what I call the 'sneering' group. Those who trot out the same old cliche's without ever offering any sort of analysis on a subject.

Also people who repeat the exact same thing over and over and over. Again no analysis, no insight, nothing, just the same few lines and phrases thrown out over and over again and no willingness to move from their set opinion.

Quite a few of the loudest poster's belong to what I call the sneering group and as they tend to dominate proceedings, that is why I have less interest in posting here. I would say I am neraly always reasoned but dealing with the sneering group does tend to bring out the worst in me. I think a quick look through the Dan Martin thread would illustrate that clearly.

I could have enjoyable debates with many poster's who I don't necessarily agree with(e.g Red Flanders in said thread) but they will nearly always be taken off course by others.

I don't really believe in Chris Froome and refrain from posting in SKY threads but the manner in which anyone who even remotely defends SKY/Froome are treated by the sneering crowd makes me almost want to defend SKY/Froome also. It's bad when the people you mostly agree with on an issue make you want to switch sides.

One of the best posts I've read on this forum.

 

[ChrisE]

Eshnar:

Maybe. But I get angry if I give a general warning and someone answers by doing, between the lines, the exact thing I said to NOT do.

And that's where the lines get blurred in here.

If posters say something that can be challenged, it is not a personal attack nor does it make it about "them". He made posts attacking others for only having a position that is borne out by previous public and under oath statements by the players in this saga, and he took that position while hurling insults such as 'troll' and 'groupie'. Afterwards RR backs off and then tries to turn it around by saying I etal are saying LA was on EPO in 93. Previously RR picks apart parts of Macur's new book that shed bad light on his friends, while trumpeting other parts that fits his narrative.

Its hard to not comment on the poster when they make the thread about them, when they publicly display such a part in this whole ordeal. Even so, my edited post did not attack nor was it about RR...it was about this forum. The fact that you left up the 'get back to bashing LA' part, while imploring other posters not to comment about RR's absurdity, sums it up.

 

[Eshnar]

Eshnar:



And that's where the lines get blurred in here.

If posters say something that can be challenged, it is not a personal attack nor does it make it about "them". He made posts attacking others for only having a position that is borne out by previous public and under oath statements by the players in this saga, and he took that position while hurling insults such as 'troll' and 'groupie'. Afterwards RR backs off and then tries to turn it around by saying I etal are saying LA was on EPO in 93. Previously RR picks apart parts of Macur's new book that shed bad light on his friends, while trumpeting other parts that fits his narrative.

Its hard to not comment on the poster when they make the thread about them, when they publicly display such a part in this whole ordeal. Even so, my edited post did not attack nor was it about RR...it was about this forum. The fact that you left up the 'get back to bashing LA' part, while imploring other posters not to comment about RR's absurdity, sums it up.

No one asks you not to challenge other poster's views. But if a thread becomes a endless and systematic challenge towards a single users, who may be correct or wrong, doesn't matter much, I have to step in and bring it back on topic, which in that particular case was Armstrong. You will notice I had not deleted a single post from that argument. I simply told you to move on. And if you respond by quoting something RR said (in a quite condescending manner), after I explicitly said to stop, I may even take it as a challenge to me... but instead I just took a deep breath and edited.

 

[Netserk]

No one asks you not to challenge other poster's views. But if a thread becomes a endless and systematic challenge towards a single users, who may be correct or wrong, doesn't matter much, I have to step in and bring it back on topic, which in that particular case was Armstrong. You will notice I had not deleted a single post from that argument. I simply told you to move on. And if you respond by quoting something RR said (in a quite condescending manner), after I explicitly said to stop, I may even take it as a challenge to me... but instead I just took a deep breath and edited.

Does that go for everyone???

 

[Eshnar]

Does that go for everyone???

If you have other threads to report I'll be happy to bring them back on topic.

 

[Race Radio]

Eshnar:



And that's where the lines get blurred in here.

If posters say something that can be challenged, it is not a personal attack nor does it make it about "them". He made posts attacking others for only having a position that is borne out by previous public and under oath statements by the players in this saga, and he took that position while hurling insults such as 'troll' and 'groupie'. Afterwards RR backs off and then tries to turn it around by saying I etal are saying LA was on EPO in 93. Previously RR picks apart parts of Macur's new book that shed bad light on his friends, while trumpeting other parts that fits his narrative.

Its hard to not comment on the poster when they make the thread about them, when they publicly display such a part in this whole ordeal. Even so, my edited post did not attack nor was it about RR...it was about this forum. The fact that you left up the 'get back to bashing LA' part, while imploring other posters not to comment about RR's absurdity, sums it up.

Nice attempt to twist the facts Chis, In between your claims that Dr. Mas and I are lovers, Claiming I write mealy mouth garbage, and twisting what I have written with some babble about affidavits.....don't be surprised if you are called on it.

As for Juliet's book, I am sure there will be parts I agree with and others I don't. It matters little if it fits with this imaginary, shifting, agenda you try to pin on me.

 

[ChrisE]

No one asks you not to challenge other poster's views. But if a thread becomes a endless and systematic challenge towards a single users, who may be correct or wrong, doesn't matter much, I have to step in and bring it back on topic, which in that particular case was Armstrong. You will notice I had not deleted a single post from that argument. I simply told you to move on. And if you respond by quoting something RR said (in a quite condescending manner), after I explicitly said to stop, I may even take it as a challenge to me... but instead I just took a deep breath and edited.

And where did the thread turn into an attack on RR? We attacked his opinion. The closest anybody came to attacking him was Andy saying RR was biased, which is spot on. If he doesn't want to be challenged, stop posting. Or, when he is challenged maybe you should tell him to stop calling his challengers 'trolls' and 'groupies'.

Also, you didn't tell us to 'move on'; you told us to stop attacking RR. And, I quoted you in my post that you editted, not RR, and I stated the reasons I did that in my previous post above which you have not addressed.

 

[the sceptic]

Eshnar:



And that's where the lines get blurred in here.

If posters say something that can be challenged, it is not a personal attack nor does it make it about "them". He made posts attacking others for only having a position that is borne out by previous public and under oath statements by the players in this saga, and he took that position while hurling insults such as 'troll' and 'groupie'. Afterwards RR backs off and then tries to turn it around by saying I etal are saying LA was on EPO in 93. Previously RR picks apart parts of Macur's new book that shed bad light on his friends, while trumpeting other parts that fits his narrative.

Its hard to not comment on the poster when they make the thread about them, when they publicly display such a part in this whole ordeal. Even so, my edited post did not attack nor was it about RR...it was about this forum. The fact that you left up the 'get back to bashing LA' part, while imploring other posters not to comment about RR's absurdity, sums it up.

You just have to accept that Armstrong, I mean Race Radio gets special treatment from the powers that be.

 

[ChrisE]

Nice attempt to twist the facts Chis, In between your claims that Dr. Mas and I are lovers, Claiming I write mealy mouth garbage, and twisting what I have written with some babble about affidavits.....don't be surprised if you are called on it.

As for Juliet's book, I am sure there will be parts I agree with and others I don't. It matters little if it fits with this imaginary, shifting, agenda you try to pin on me.

Actually, I remembered somebody else writing that the other day saying you two should get a room. Nothing heavy there.

Hey, if you want to back off what you were writing that is cool. You wrote something, then backed off, then say you are being consistent while accusing me lol. Yes, its mealy mouth.

It is ok to change your mind when challenged. No need to the thread twist history to save face. People can read it and your other posts and form their own opinions, so I don't care to debate somebody that has so much emotional investment in this soap opera.

 

[MarkvW]

You just have to accept that Armstrong, I mean Race Radio gets special treatment from the powers that be.

It is rather obvious.

 

[Eshnar]

Also, you didn't tell us to 'move on'; you told us to stop attacking RR. And, I quoted you in my post that you editted, not RR, and I stated the reasons I did that in my previous post above which you have not addressed.

No, I told you to concentrate about Armstrong instead of RR. I didn't said to stop attacking him. Read that again.
You did quote me, ofc. But you also quoted one of RR's claims, that is the part I edited out. I didn't actually need to address the rest of your earlier post, as I already stated that it's ok to challenge opinions. So what else exactly should I address?
EDIT: And ofc, calling people trolls is no good. As calling people sockpuppets. But you know, this forum is full of people who apparently forget that easily. Can't ban everyone, can I?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You just have to accept that Armstrong, I mean Race Radio gets special treatment from the powers that be.

I wouldn't call you and the Hog group as a 'powers that be', but you certainly have an obsession with him.

 

[ChrisE]

No, I told you to concentrate about Armstrong instead of RR. I didn't said to stop attacking him. Read that again.
You did quote me, ofc. But you also quoted one of RR's claims, that is the part I edited out. I didn't actually need to address the rest of your earlier post, as I already stated that it's ok to challenge opinions. So what else exactly should I address?
EDIT: And ofc, calling people trolls is no good. As calling people sockpuppets. But you know, this forum is full of people who apparently forget that easily. Can't ban everyone, can I?

You agreed to DQs post saying that the previous posts were an attack on RR, that made him 'angry' or something. By proxy, you were telling people to stop attacking RR. I wasn't the only one that read it that way, as you know.

You should address why you edited out my part about RR's opinion, and left in the part about 'getting back to bashing LA'. "Bashing" has negative connotations, and doesn't exactly put forth a moderated even-handed view of the debate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You agreed to DQs post saying that the previous posts were an attack on RR, that made him 'angry' or something. By proxy, you were telling people to stop attacking RR. I wasn't the only one that read it that way, as you know.

You should address why you edited out my part about RR's opinion, and left in the part about 'getting back to bashing LA'. "Bashing" has negative connotations, and doesn't exactly put forth a moderated even-handed view of the debate.

You want a mod to edit your own post where you brought in that people should return to 'bashing LA'?
You're right is has negative connotations, it is the whole reason you introduced it.

 

[ChrisE]

You want a mod to edit your own post where you brought in that people should return to 'bashing LA'?
You're right is has negative connotations, it is the whole reason you introduced it.

Yes, and along with 'negative', the adjective 'accurate' is another term you can pick apart for awhile.

 

[Eshnar]

You agreed to DQs post saying that the previous posts were an attack on RR, that made him 'angry' or something. By proxy, you were telling people to stop attacking RR. I wasn't the only one that read it that way, as you know.

You should address why you edited out my part about RR's opinion, and left in the part about 'getting back to bashing LA'. "Bashing" has negative connotations, and doesn't exactly put forth a moderated even-handed view of the debate.

oops, didn't considered DQs quote. Now I understand why I got misinterpreted. My apologies. Despite the usual posters of the clinic (and I'm not saying you), I'm not good on innuendos. My posts generally do mean what there's written on them, and nothing more. I quoted DQs because he was sick of that behaviour, as I was (and am) but didn't mean to label all those posts as "attacks" to RR (although some of them might be considered as such)

As for the "bashing" stuff: I didn't edited that because users can indeed bash Armstrong in the Armstrong's thread, and it is in fact one of the things I'm sure it's done most frequently in that thread. I never did that anyway, and I don't believe it's a nice thing to do either. But it's allowed, just as this thread is to bash us mods, and not discussin and arguing again between you guys, as we stated countless times.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

While Eshnar runs a pretty hard line overall, he is fair imo. I like the decisiveness here. I mean no one should have to waste too much time explaining themselves in a volunteer "job".

 

[Race Radio]

It is rather obvious.

Yup, pretty obvious some here have some strange obsession with me. Instead of addressing the specific points or the topic they insist on targeting me and babble about bias and agenda. It is easier to target me then address the content of my posts.

Only believe the parts that support your convenient prejudices.

all of a sudden a NYT article takes on more significance than sworn affidavits etc, because it suits someone's narrative?

OK, just let everyone know when you have run the statement through the implicationometer.
Truth is clearly a moveable feast.

RR, who show total bias re anything Armstrong.

consistently biased agenda, dressed up as reporting of facts.

Are you two dating?

mealy mouth garbage above.

RR has only one speed, and he doesn't change pace for anyone.

The bias was clear to see.

This is just a small sample from one thread.

 

[ChrisE]

oops, didn't considered DQs quote. Now I understand why I got misinterpreted. My apologies. Despite the usual posters of the clinic (and I'm not saying you), I'm not good on innuendos. My posts generally do mean what there's written on them, and nothing more. I quoted DQs because he was sick of that behaviour, as I was (and am) but didn't mean to label all those posts as "attacks" to RR (although some of them might be considered as such)

As for the "bashing" stuff: I didn't edited that because users can indeed bash Armstrong in the Armstrong's thread, and it is in fact one of the things I'm sure it's done most frequently in that thread. I never did that anyway, and I don't believe it's a nice thing to do either. But it's allowed, just as this thread is to bash us mods, and not discussin and arguing again between you guys, as we stated countless times.

No apology needed. I understand that there are a lot of things you review and have to make decisions about, and maybe post in haste. My point was that your post drew a line in the sand about what was acceptable, and it got interpreted in a way you did not mean. No harm no foul now that it is cleaned up.

But, moving to 'bashing', how good is that for debate? How good is it that posters like mew and 86tdfwinner post nothing but BS about LA, but then I get threatened for having a position here that others view as correct that ergo doesn't paint LA in the worst possible light? And now you admit your admonishment of me was a misunderstanding.

For awhile when DPF first started out, only 'factual' doping inclinations could be posted per the mod rules. That stifled debate, and I didn't like it and eventually that rule fell away because it was just to difficult to enforce. This debate about LA EPO use before 95 would have been off limits until today, for example. I am not for that of course, but 'bashing' with a bunch of unsupported BS just to talk smack about LA, Froome, Wiggins, or anybody is a bunch of BS. Pointing out inconsistencies and having different opinions about clinic 'heroes' is not a reason to get banned or threatened with banning, or being called a troll. I hope somebody on the mod team agrees.

 

[ChrisE]

While Eshnar runs a pretty hard line overall, he is fair imo. I like the decisiveness here. I mean no one should have to waste too much time explaining themselves in a volunteer "job".

For some reason that doesn't surprise me that you think that way on this subject.

 

[mewmewmew13]

No apology needed. I understand that there are a lot of things you review and have to make decisions about, and maybe post in haste. My point was that your post drew a line in the sand about what was acceptable, and it got interpreted in a way you did not mean. No harm no foul now that it is cleaned up.

But, moving to 'bashing', how good is that for debate? How good is it that posters like mew and 86tdfwinner post nothing but BS about LA, but then I get threatened for having a position here that others view as correct that ergo doesn't paint LA in the worst possible light? And now you admit your admonishment of me was a misunderstanding.

For awhile when DPF first started out, only 'factual' doping inclinations could be posted per the mod rules. That stifled debate, and I didn't like it and eventually that rule fell away because it was just to difficult to enforce. This debate about LA EPO use before 95 would have been off limits until today, for example. I am not for that of course, but 'bashing' with a bunch of unsupported BS just to talk smack about LA, Froome, Wiggins, or anybody is a bunch of BS. Pointing out inconsistencies and having different opinions about clinic 'heroes' is not a reason to get banned or threatened with banning, or being called a troll. I hope somebody on the mod team agrees.

If you look upthread you will see that I post links as well as discuss..and yes I post some Lance-bashing..but it is based on fact not my fairy tale view.

..AND I am not known for attacking other posters in a mean-spirited veiled way and I don't go on for post after post whining about things.

ps I got a warning a couple weeks ago does that make you happy?