Poster double standards

[Glockers]

In conclusion - while some people may have double standards - to suggest that there is an entire group with double standards is simply not the case.

Fair point, maybe I came across that way. The post was originally not in the clinic. I think the clinic posters are fair in their judgements (though very cynical). There is a chunk in the other forum with double standards though.

Just look at the Lombardia thread or the world champs or a few of them about the astana situation. The love professed for Vino and then the hate for Armstrong is very evident from posters. I can direct quote if asked but am pressed for time.

I think it erks me more as a Cadel fan boy (I admit it), I see these people supporting Valverde and Vino yet I just sit there going doper. Then again as stated I am a Pantani fan and find it hard not to admire him despite the doping. So I also understand it on some level.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fair point, maybe I came across that way. The post was originally not in the clinic. I think the clinic posters are fair in their judgements (though very cynical). There is a chunk in the other forum with double standards though.

Just look at the Lombardia thread or the world champs or a few of them about the astana situation. The love professed for Vino and then the hate for Armstrong is very evident from posters. I can direct quote if asked but am pressed for time.

I think it erks me more as a Cadel fan boy (I admit it), I see these people supporting Valverde and Vino yet I just sit there going doper. Then again as stated I am a Pantani fan and find it hard not to admire him despite the doping. So I also understand it on some level.

Thanks for your honest reply - the reason I asked about LA was I suspected that you and Gee would hold different views on LA. My point - which admittedly came across poorly - was that the same differences of opinion are on the levels to which people don't particularly like him.

I actually agree with you on the Vino saga - I have little time for the guy. Although I think every cycling fan loves an attacking rider - but until he admits his mistakes I wont be cheering for him.

I just think lately all posters are finding it frustrating being labeled or put in a group when there are quite a few different views and opinions- which is why I appreciate your reply and input.

 

[hfer07]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

It seems the Armstrong bashers allude to cheating and doping all the time (which could be accurate) but have rosey eyes for Contador and Vino.

Vino the man who has actually doped and served a suspension then waltzed back into the team like he hasn't done anything wrong. Plus he is just like Armstrong in dictating who the boss will be and the terms that team members should agree to. He seems to have every bit the ego of Lance. He is a Euro version of Lance, but he also is a convicted doper.

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance. Puerto suggests it is highly likely he dopes. Plus his mountain climbing is just ridiculous. It is a level above Pantani even and we know about Marco's dogy EPO levels.

While it is by no means everyone, there is a sizeable chunk of the forum that are rabid Lance haters who accuse him of doping yet massive fanboys of a cheat Vino and a suspected cheat Contador. Double standards?

But your statement has double standards!!

Do you know what's the difference between LA and AC,AV & AVV?

they don't claim out loud to the entire World to be the "cleanest, most tested, most honorable athletes on the planet" unlike the "double standard master Lance Armstrong"

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks for your honest reply - the reason I asked about LA was I suspected that you and Gee would hold different views on LA. My point - which admittedly came across poorly - was that the same differences of opinion are on the levels to which people don't particularly like him.

I actually agree with you on the Vino saga - I have little time for the guy. Although I think every cycling fan loves an attacking rider - but until he admits his mistakes I wont be cheering for him.

I just think lately all posters are finding it frustrating being labeled or put in a group when there are quite a few different views and opinions- which is why I appreciate your reply and input.

But who of the crowd that has been caught and is now back racing has fully "admitted his mistakes"? Vino, Floyd, intended to dope Basso, maybe Mr. only tried it the one time Millar, who? Unless you say either the right thing or nothing, you are done. They are like TV evangelicals admitting to going astray only that one time in a seedy hotel room with three hookers and a midget.

 

[gregod]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

...

It seems to me that to be a fan of anyone means a certain degree of hypocrisy or double standards. Who one likes is purely subjective. So, supporting your choice requires subjugating the negative and highlighting the positive.

In my case, I liked Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino. First, I stopped liking Armstrong after reading his book, "It's Not About the Bike." His personality rubbed me the wrong way. Next came Contador. When he won his first tour, I was behind him all the way. But his hackneyed "pistolero" pose turned me off of him. After that, Astana fell out of favor. This was difficult for me because I have a personal connection to Kazakhstan. But when they stopped paying salaries, Armstrong/Bruyneel screwing Contador and the higher-ups in the Kazakh federation allowing it, I had had enough. Finally, with Vino, to me his return was similar to Armstrong's in that it was done by his fiat, regardless of whether or not he actually fit in any longer. Granted, he set up the team in the first place and had more of a claim on that team than Armstrong, but it should be Contador's team now-he is the Astana team's only tour winner.

In all of those choices, no racing factors were really a concern of mine. Probably it would be better to make decisions about who to support on sporting decisions. However, for me, the color of the team kit is probably more important than who is actually on the team. But where I differ from the people on this forum who attack certain riders, is that I don't feel that it is necessary to expose my own double standards over who I support by attacking the riders that I do not like. Vitriol is a waste of time and energy.

 

[skippy254]

Blah blah blah, blibbidy, blah blah blah......we are all experts at knowing little to nothing or even less than that. Give this topic a rest....you hate Lance, someone else hates Contador, etc. There sure are a lot of spiteful people hating blokes that they've never met or in anyway been harmed by.

 

[Angliru]

LA is the most successful cyclist, not just in cycling wins .

We are to guess that you're referring to number of Tour de France wins? Surely you can't mean overall career victories? If that is the basis for your argument then we should all be just relentlessly bashing Merckx and Longo.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But who of the crowd that has been caught and is now back racing has fully "admitted his mistakes"? Vino, Floyd, intended to dope Basso, maybe Mr. only tried it the one time Millar, who? Unless you say either the right thing or nothing, you are done. They are like TV evangelicals admitting to going astray only that one time in a seedy hotel room with three hookers and a midget.

My points on this thread were to highlight the difficulties in generalizing either posters or opinions in to groups - particularly on a forum with 7000 members. As it often does not lead to proper informed, respectful debate.

That is why I respect the input and clarifications of Gee & Glockers as they have taken the time to articulate their views - and while at times I may disagree with their points - ultimately we have a lot more in common then we probably would have acknowledged before this thread.

To answer your Vino question - at least Basso alluded to being a little naughty while Vino continues to deny any wrong doing.

 

[Hugh Januss]

To answer your Vino question - at least Basso alluded to being a little naughty while Vino continues to deny any wrong doing.

To me there is not much difference between the two. Never has there been a heartfelt full confession, and Basso's bullcrap about how he had just "intended to dope" is more insulting to my intelligence than Vino. Vino means "I didn't do anything wrong that everyone else doesn't do" when he says "I didn't do anything". Maybe we should consider that he is in a position to know.

 

[python]

@ dr. m and hugh

if either or both of u were present in almaaty today you'd not have the disagreement about vino...u'd be converted to his ecstatic fanboiz. i hear it was the first-time-aired documentary about his return, his doping case and the 'system'. vino rocks in my book even wo the promotional.

 

[hadskygli]

The best that go together.