My speech for the defence to the owners. Moderator leave the response to the owners: you were wrong on all counts executing unjustifiable bans.
As an owner of at least one high traffic forum nothing to do with sport, I know the difficulties moderators have, the limited time, that it is not an exact science and that you cannot please all of them all of the time.
All accepted and true. BUT I write as a victim of a sequence of lamentable and inconsistent moderation decisions: and NONE of the difficulties of moderation can excuse just how bad and inequitable these decisions were. Put simply moderators are failing to read posts or before execute sanctions and areyielding to the views of the clinic mob.
Before discussing unjustifiable bans - the attitude of moderators is typified by a thread I started discussing the impact of minute doping positives - less than a drip of a clinical dose is enough to be positive , a wet glove might be enough - so I questioned how worried the sport and riders had to be about malicious spiking of drinks and food by spectators.
A reasonable argument about a serious issue. But that thread was "still born" and locked because the moderator in question decided I had "alterior motives" (never identified; I challenge anyone to find an "!alterior motive" in wanting to discuss that! The same moderator did NOTHING to sanction facetious replies from the clinic mob. He refused to reopen presumably because he did not want to admit it was a bad decision, despite admitting it was a "close call"
Another poster queried whether he could open a similar thread and was given leave to do so P$OVING the decision had NOTHING to do with the content of the thread and all to do with presumption of guilt.
I was a "marked man" for no good reason.
So to the (even more) ridiculous sanctions.
I will not waste time commenting on ALL decisions - two bitterly prove the point that moderators do not read posts before moderating.
I pointed out on a thread that the structure and location of sports anti doping as it is now was influenced by the "butch reynolds affair"in athletics' The IAAF banned him without proper process, and Reynolds sued. The court cases that followed frightened IAAF into moving into safer jurisdiction (london to monaco) where they were less likely to be sequestrated in future. Henceforth country federations were obliged to take the lead with IAAF disapproving sanctions they did not like, keeping IAAF out of the legal firing line. The parallels are noticeable. UCI moved to Switzerland at much the same time outside EU law.
So how did I get a ban?
I stated that reynolds had sued for a lot of money, and won the case. He did. (Although never got paid.) I also said Reynolds took his case to the Supreme Court and won. I was given a week ban for "lying"
Had any of you ACTUALLY researched it you would see that the supreme court DID indeed get involved and overturned Butch Reynolds ban to allow him to compete at the 92 olympic trials. So he SUPREME COURT DID enforce a jdgement for him. He never did get to run at the games, because
the IOC were beyond US jurisdiction. Like the UCI and IAAF.
But he DUD win at supreme court. I was banned for a week and gagged on the matter. The point of substance was true. The Reynolds affair did had a far reaching influence. There was no justification for any ban - certainly not a defamatory one for "Lying"
Even MORE ridiculous was a 3 month ban ( nowhere in the progressive sanctions I can see in the rules) 3 months seemingly invented just for me.
How did I manage that?
According to the moderator because i had invoked the names of some "historic bad guys" in respect of " other forum members". Totally false. In his eagerness to sanction the moderator did not read the post.
If the moderator had actually read ithe would see that I raised the names NOT in respect of members but as example that proves the "enemy of your enemy" is not your friend" - I raised it specifically about Landis opposing Armstrong, does not ipso facto make Landis a good man as many in the clinic seem to imply. In addition to being a career cheat, Landis tampered witnesses threatening lemond with child abuse accusations. f he dared testify.. So in my view Landis is not the "good guy" the clinic sometimes make out.
Whether or not you agree with that it is clearly a reasonable view to hold.
So nothing to do with forum members. The moderator did not even do me the courtesy of reading before giving a 3 month ban for something I did not do!
There is the issue of my raising the bad guys apparently is technically against the rules. I clearly did not know, and indeed that rule is well buried, and not in the FAQ. So a simple <snip> and a mention of the rule was the right response. In any event you can google many many PAGES of LISTS of lists of threads in which those bad guys are named without posters being sanctioned . So a ban is clearly selective enforcement. A 3 month ban? ridiculous.
Someone challenged that mod on this : which resulted in rapid back pedalling and change of tack saying the ban was also for "a history of trolling"
And that of course is the REAL problem. False presumption of guilt.
There is no definition of "what is a troll" which is nowhere in the rules I can find. And this forum does not seem to know how that word is applied on other forums. So anyone can call anyone else a troll - and pretty much everyone does in the clinic mob. So how did I earn that title of troll?
The reality is it is Because I express views outside the clinic mob mantra and herd view. Here are some of my views.
- That cycling justice is an inconsistent shambles. I am in good company. Judge sparks was not impressed either
- That career cheat hincapie and others got off far too lightly. He did.
- That Landis is not a nice guy.
- That Tygart should never have allowed Hincapie to ride the TdF.
- That the reasoned decision is not an objective assessment for exampleArmstrong was not EVEN the father of team systematic doping in USPS even. It started before him, ask scott mercier. Tygart "conveniently" omits that.
- That cycling justice should not go outside the WADA code into country law as it did on the SOL, otherwise US cycling law is different from elsewhere which should not be.
- That the most likely reason the US Justice did not join qui tam was not incompetence or corruption or undue influence. They did not think they would win. Until Armstrong confessed
and so no.
Now whether or not you agree with any of that , they are clearly reasonable views to hold. Not so. Not here. This forum stifles opinions it dislikes.
If you ever criticise Tygart for example. from that moment on the clinic mob brand you a troll. They call you that n every post- and the moderators do nothing to stop it, or to curb the stream of insults which the mob throw your way.
In most forums even calling someone "troll" earns a sanction and rightly so, , and in any event the members should leave moderation to mods. Not so here. The fact is if you hold views other than the clinic herd view that:
Hate armstrong who should be in jail. Love tygart. Love Landis. Sky are doping Subscribe to childish conspiracy theories etc If you don not subscribe to the mantra, Then the clinic marginalise all you say.
Worse still, when the clinic mob keep saying troll troll, the moderators treat
you as if you are. The jungle drums beat, and soon enough you are treated that way.
Wake up call mods. The Trolls ARE the handful of clinic faithful who routinely insult and demean all those who disagree with herd view hoping to incite a response, so to the mods to sanction. It happens repeatedly.
It makes the forum an unpleasant place to express opinions.
So forum owners take note. The moderators are not reading or moderating with impartiality. Whether you are sanctioned for "going off topic" , "trolling" or " mentioning historic bad guys" is totally subjective. Mods yield to those who shout loudest.
Fr as long as other views are repressed the forum will be irrelevant as a discussion medium for cycling.
I would like an apology from the mods though I do not expect one.
All of the decisions were outrageous.
As an owner of at least one high traffic forum nothing to do with sport, I know the difficulties moderators have, the limited time, that it is not an exact science and that you cannot please all of them all of the time.
All accepted and true. BUT I write as a victim of a sequence of lamentable and inconsistent moderation decisions: and NONE of the difficulties of moderation can excuse just how bad and inequitable these decisions were. Put simply moderators are failing to read posts or before execute sanctions and areyielding to the views of the clinic mob.
Before discussing unjustifiable bans - the attitude of moderators is typified by a thread I started discussing the impact of minute doping positives - less than a drip of a clinical dose is enough to be positive , a wet glove might be enough - so I questioned how worried the sport and riders had to be about malicious spiking of drinks and food by spectators.
A reasonable argument about a serious issue. But that thread was "still born" and locked because the moderator in question decided I had "alterior motives" (never identified; I challenge anyone to find an "!alterior motive" in wanting to discuss that! The same moderator did NOTHING to sanction facetious replies from the clinic mob. He refused to reopen presumably because he did not want to admit it was a bad decision, despite admitting it was a "close call"
Another poster queried whether he could open a similar thread and was given leave to do so P$OVING the decision had NOTHING to do with the content of the thread and all to do with presumption of guilt.
I was a "marked man" for no good reason.
So to the (even more) ridiculous sanctions.
I will not waste time commenting on ALL decisions - two bitterly prove the point that moderators do not read posts before moderating.
I pointed out on a thread that the structure and location of sports anti doping as it is now was influenced by the "butch reynolds affair"in athletics' The IAAF banned him without proper process, and Reynolds sued. The court cases that followed frightened IAAF into moving into safer jurisdiction (london to monaco) where they were less likely to be sequestrated in future. Henceforth country federations were obliged to take the lead with IAAF disapproving sanctions they did not like, keeping IAAF out of the legal firing line. The parallels are noticeable. UCI moved to Switzerland at much the same time outside EU law.
So how did I get a ban?
I stated that reynolds had sued for a lot of money, and won the case. He did. (Although never got paid.) I also said Reynolds took his case to the Supreme Court and won. I was given a week ban for "lying"
Had any of you ACTUALLY researched it you would see that the supreme court DID indeed get involved and overturned Butch Reynolds ban to allow him to compete at the 92 olympic trials. So he SUPREME COURT DID enforce a jdgement for him. He never did get to run at the games, because
the IOC were beyond US jurisdiction. Like the UCI and IAAF.
But he DUD win at supreme court. I was banned for a week and gagged on the matter. The point of substance was true. The Reynolds affair did had a far reaching influence. There was no justification for any ban - certainly not a defamatory one for "Lying"
Even MORE ridiculous was a 3 month ban ( nowhere in the progressive sanctions I can see in the rules) 3 months seemingly invented just for me.
How did I manage that?
According to the moderator because i had invoked the names of some "historic bad guys" in respect of " other forum members". Totally false. In his eagerness to sanction the moderator did not read the post.
If the moderator had actually read ithe would see that I raised the names NOT in respect of members but as example that proves the "enemy of your enemy" is not your friend" - I raised it specifically about Landis opposing Armstrong, does not ipso facto make Landis a good man as many in the clinic seem to imply. In addition to being a career cheat, Landis tampered witnesses threatening lemond with child abuse accusations. f he dared testify.. So in my view Landis is not the "good guy" the clinic sometimes make out.
Whether or not you agree with that it is clearly a reasonable view to hold.
So nothing to do with forum members. The moderator did not even do me the courtesy of reading before giving a 3 month ban for something I did not do!
There is the issue of my raising the bad guys apparently is technically against the rules. I clearly did not know, and indeed that rule is well buried, and not in the FAQ. So a simple <snip> and a mention of the rule was the right response. In any event you can google many many PAGES of LISTS of lists of threads in which those bad guys are named without posters being sanctioned . So a ban is clearly selective enforcement. A 3 month ban? ridiculous.
Someone challenged that mod on this : which resulted in rapid back pedalling and change of tack saying the ban was also for "a history of trolling"
And that of course is the REAL problem. False presumption of guilt.
There is no definition of "what is a troll" which is nowhere in the rules I can find. And this forum does not seem to know how that word is applied on other forums. So anyone can call anyone else a troll - and pretty much everyone does in the clinic mob. So how did I earn that title of troll?
The reality is it is Because I express views outside the clinic mob mantra and herd view. Here are some of my views.
- That cycling justice is an inconsistent shambles. I am in good company. Judge sparks was not impressed either
- That career cheat hincapie and others got off far too lightly. He did.
- That Landis is not a nice guy.
- That Tygart should never have allowed Hincapie to ride the TdF.
- That the reasoned decision is not an objective assessment for exampleArmstrong was not EVEN the father of team systematic doping in USPS even. It started before him, ask scott mercier. Tygart "conveniently" omits that.
- That cycling justice should not go outside the WADA code into country law as it did on the SOL, otherwise US cycling law is different from elsewhere which should not be.
- That the most likely reason the US Justice did not join qui tam was not incompetence or corruption or undue influence. They did not think they would win. Until Armstrong confessed
and so no.
Now whether or not you agree with any of that , they are clearly reasonable views to hold. Not so. Not here. This forum stifles opinions it dislikes.
If you ever criticise Tygart for example. from that moment on the clinic mob brand you a troll. They call you that n every post- and the moderators do nothing to stop it, or to curb the stream of insults which the mob throw your way.
In most forums even calling someone "troll" earns a sanction and rightly so, , and in any event the members should leave moderation to mods. Not so here. The fact is if you hold views other than the clinic herd view that:
Hate armstrong who should be in jail. Love tygart. Love Landis. Sky are doping Subscribe to childish conspiracy theories etc If you don not subscribe to the mantra, Then the clinic marginalise all you say.
Worse still, when the clinic mob keep saying troll troll, the moderators treat
you as if you are. The jungle drums beat, and soon enough you are treated that way.
Wake up call mods. The Trolls ARE the handful of clinic faithful who routinely insult and demean all those who disagree with herd view hoping to incite a response, so to the mods to sanction. It happens repeatedly.
It makes the forum an unpleasant place to express opinions.
So forum owners take note. The moderators are not reading or moderating with impartiality. Whether you are sanctioned for "going off topic" , "trolling" or " mentioning historic bad guys" is totally subjective. Mods yield to those who shout loudest.
Fr as long as other views are repressed the forum will be irrelevant as a discussion medium for cycling.
I would like an apology from the mods though I do not expect one.
All of the decisions were outrageous.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram