READ THIS! (Posting Violations)

[Winterfold]

I havent responded to one of your posts before now, but you are by some way the most irritating poster I have come across on any forum on the Internet. If that is your goal, well done.

What annoys people is not that you take a different view but that you simply state that view dogmatically, and then when facts are provided you continue to restate the view, and restate and restate.

The discussion about Millar is a perfect example - you ignore the evidence of his palmares, of him crashing, of him deliberately holding back on GC in order for breakaways to be allowed to succeed. OF THE CYCLIST STATING WITH HIS OWN WORDS THAT DOPING HELPED HIM and continue to trot out the same line.

And worse, we know you don't even care about Millar, i bet you couldnt ID him if him he stood next to you, we know what you're about and why you're here.

With every comment people like you make, the less I think of LA. I had almost started to like him a bit after the Tour, but people like you are banging the final nails in the coffin of the guy's reputation.

Think about that, and then go away.

please

 

[pedaling squares]

Its all a Double sided coin, everything. EPO works, EPO doesn't work. Facts it did work, facts it didn't work. EPO enhances performance, at the same has negative side effects on athletic performance. Riders saw success doping, others didn't. Doping can't win you the Tour, Doping is the holy grail. Its 2 & throw. You said it best; No one has ever claimed doping guarantees Tour success, not for Armstrong in '99, Millar in '03, Riis in '97 etc etc...

I think if you review some of the other threads you will see that people gave you explanations for Millar in '03 and Riis in '97. You posted in the thread after their comments but did not address them. Personally, I hate to see people getting banned. I see some value in having opposing opinions in these forums. But you Rise, in particular, throw out claims that are pretty far-fetched and then don't respond to counter-arguments other than by repeating your original claim. You can surely see why this is frustrating, it's a debate that goes nowhere. And if you're just throwing out a line to see who bites and how hard, you're not contributing anything. Which might be your goal, but there are other people on this site who get pretty tired of the same circular arguments. Someone called it Groundhog Day, which is about the best analogy I can think of.

 

[Ferminal]

Its all a Double sided coin, everything. EPO works, EPO doesn't work. Facts it did work, facts it didn't work. EPO enhances performance, at the same has negative side effects on athletic performance. Riders saw success doping, others didn't. Doping can't win you the Tour, Doping is the holy grail. Its 2 & throw. You said it best; No one has ever claimed doping guarantees Tour success, not for Armstrong in '99, Millar in '03, Riis in '97 etc etc...

Again you make a completely random post and fail to answer "why".

You've completely missed the point, but that doesn't surprise me.

It's not a double sided coin, it's a realm of unknown. No one is here to claim that doping is the be all and end all of the sport, The Clinic is a place to discuss everything from rumours, suspensions, techniques, science, who's doing what etc. The Clinic is not the place to come in and say "Every cyclist blood dopes and any who don't fail" or "Blood doping provides no benefits to performance". Any person who consistently posts either of those themes is of no benefit to discussions in The Clinic. Quite clearly, you fall into one of these categories, I'll let you pick which one.

Your sole objective is to disrupt The Clinic in order to ensure no threads become knowledgeable, enjoyable and well built. I'm not sure how you believe you can contribute by just typing the same message over and over, ignoring people's direct questions is bad enough.

 

[Ferminal]

3) CN could simply make The Clinic restricted, either through a special permission to those who request it, or to those who reach a certain post level (which would mean no instant registrations and disruptions).

 

[tifosa]

Oh FFS!

The trolling is unabated since March 2009:


http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=3073#post3073


http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=4281#post4281


Same song, different year.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

Guys, Its all a double sided sword.

For every argument for Armstrong doping in '99 & seeing success because of it, there is another to counter against it. You know, "(Riis's '96 success was due to doping)", but hes been doping forever, did he see success from the start?, did the success continue?. Its '97, Hes still doping, but he can't beat Ullrich who is clean. Does Riis's '96 success come down to doping. No. Hes been doped literally all his career. Doping is so bloody inconsistant.

For every doping "success", theres a David Millar.

 

[Ferminal]

If that doesn't get you banned I'm not sure what will.

 

[Race Radio]

It appears that some do not understand what constitutes a debate. It also appears that this lack of understanding is intentional. Disruption is clearly the goal of a couple posters here.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

What will we see in the future???...

More David Millars proving you guys wrong, no, doping doesn't work...

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

If doping didn't work for Riis in 97', '93, '94 etc, Sorry, it can't work for him in '96.

 

[Ferminal]

The trolling is unabated since March 2009:


http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=3073#post3073


http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=4281#post4281


Same song, different year.

Thanks for the link, this shows that the reaction to BigBoat when he was at his worst was quite loud, proving my earlier point.

Also this gem -

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=4264&postcount=26

In conclusion, in all the doping discussions, everyone seems to be content to discuss it on the terms as presented to us by the so called anti-doping industry. How is it possible that they set the standards and perimeters, and everyone seems to quietly/willingly accept it. Is it because so many vocal protagonists have an interest in an expanding anti-doping industry? *conspiracy alert* If they set the standards, globally, now, they start dictating the standards of many sports, and become, perhaps, even more powerful than the different associations that organize and regulate specific disciplines. Is that what they are doing by being tough on cyclists, trying to establish credibility - street rep in the sporting industry - so that they can be trusted to assume a bigger role in different disciplines. After all, all 'industries' have the tendency to grow, and make it in their interest to expand beyond their base constituency, while simultaneously vehemently defending their right to exist.

I might have phrased some issue incorrectly, used the wrong words, or intentionally taken it to the extreme. I hope however that it leads to a real discussion about doping...

Very good words which need to be remembered.

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

If doping didn't work for Riis in 97', '93, '94 etc, Sorry, it can't work for him in '96.

That is because there is a bigger picture.

SPOT ON!!!

 

[BroDeal]

If doping didn't work for Riis in 97', '93, '94 etc, Sorry, it can't work for him in '96.

Jesus Fucking Christ on a pogo stick. We cannot even have a thread that has nothing to do with Armstrong or doping without it getting filled with your garbage.

 

[Big GMaC]

That is because there is a bigger picture.

SPOT ON!!!

Uh oh. someone forgot to switch accounts before self agreeing...

 

[Ferminal]

Uh oh. someone forgot to switch accounts before self agreeing...

Nah I think he's just Schizo

 

[Rise Of The Dead]

Jesus Fucking Christ on a pogo stick. We cannot even have a thread that has nothing to do with Armstrong or doping without it getting filled with your garbage.

But go on admit it, I'm right...

 

[Anonymous]

Paranoid

I am a distrustful person. I often feel this way

BUT consider:
Accusations are leveled against someone, maybe about doping, maybe a cyclist. The accused can respond by
1. Admitting guilt
2. Deny guilt
3. Attack the source of the accusation, the reporter, the poster etc. (ad hominem)
4. Try to destroy the vehicle by which the accusation is made, the newspaper, the forum etc.

Just a thought.

 

[Slayer]

There are several high-count posters here that seem to think that they have a mandate to behave however they like based upon being a high-count poster. Labelling everybody else 'trolls' etc...

Yes that is a key part of the problem. I think this is due to how posters often see themselves here at the clinic. They think they are anti doping activists fighting for a great moral cause, and thus they must be morally superior to those that have a problem with some of their arguments. This can lead to them being quite malicious and nasty, often without realising it, against people they believe are not fully onboard with the cause. These impurities are termed trolls and idiots, and hounded until the moderators feel they have to remove the "disruption".

In a way it's a sort of blackmail. They know, as high priests or anti doping, they are untouchable - they're never going to get banned in a million years - so if they kick up enough fuss by ganging up on the impurity then the mods will eventually have to do what they say if they want the forum to return to "normal".

What we need is less people who believe god is on their side.

 

[Slayer]

Another invisible part of the problem is that there used to be some heated, but civil and highly informative debates that went on in this forum. Some of them very insightful, and science based. Members such as Beroepsrenner, ScienceIsCool, Joe Papp, Gree232, Grimpeur, rarely even show up on the site anymore, and who could blame them? Some of these members were ex-professional cyclists, coaches, or people with scientific or medical professional backgrounds. Add to that, respected members such as Elapid, Cobber, Cobblestones, Benpounder rarely set foot in the clinic anymore.

But you do always tend to get this in forums. Every couple of months people will say "what happened to such and such and so and so? It used to be good but now it's crap". It's always the case. Forums are constantly evolving places with people coming and going, and it's just a fact of life that they tend to dumb down a little bit as they get bigger and more diverse. It's impossible to maintain a tight community feel of a dozen or so like minded 'experts'.

 

[Ripper]

Yes that is a key part of the problem ...

Or it could be that some people actually post silly material and refuse to engage in debate, but rather reply to their owns posts and just state the same thing over and over again. Like I said near the beginning of this thread, it is like someone coming around and trying to argue - "No! The world is flat. I have won my argument". It is just BS and an attempt to troll.

I am not a fan of banning someone. However, the Deads and Hombres are just a waste of monitor space and serve to have valued discussion disrupted. There really is no place for them.

 

[Slayer]

Or it could be that some people actually post silly material and refuse to engage in debate, but rather reply to their owns posts and just state the same thing over and over again. Like I said near the beginning of this thread, it is like someone coming around and trying to argue - "No! The world is flat. I have won my argument". It is just BS and an attempt to troll.

I am not a fan of banning someone. However, the Deads and Hombres are just a waste of monitor space and serve to have valued discussion disrupted. There really is no place for them.

Well I agree he does need to start varying it up a bit. I wasn't really talking about the reaction to this one poster, but the general culture towards those that take a contrary type of view in an anti doping forum. They're often treated as heretics.

 

[Race Radio]

I welcome alternative views, without them a forum gets boring.

As much as a Troll might plead persecution for their "Views" we all know that our repeatedly banned troll has never presented an alternative view, only random garbage designed to bait and disrupt.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Just a question which may be germane to this discussion. Does the ignore list have a maximum capacity?

 

[Slayer]

I welcome alternative views, without them a forum gets boring.

You may actually believe that about yourself, but frankly I don't think in reality it's true. Your tolerance level if very low and applies to a very narrow band of agreeing opinion.

As much as a Troll might plead persecution for their "Views" we all know that our repeatedly banned troll has never presented an alternative view, only random garbage designed to bait and disrupt.

I think that's part of the problem. Terming counter views as "garbage" designed to "bait and disrupt". Do you think others would last very long if they used that type of direct language about your own views? Why do you believe you have the right to say things that others are not? This is precisely what Martin was referring to - certain users think they are untouchable here. It's regrettable.

Also, the language that you express your own opinions often leaves no room for doubt, even though you cannot be sure, and that can come across as quite baiting and trolling itself. For instance, you should not just assert someone definitely took a blood bag, or that "we know" someone can't ride a tour without being doped. What you should do it make an argument saying you believe the circumstantial evidence shows this is likely to be the case. But don't claim to have some special access to "the truth" and anyone who disagrees with this is a troll. Otherwise the debate quickly becomes polarised as people take your bait, leading to the very problems this thread is about.

If this forum is going to get better then people like yourself need to stop ducking thes appeals from the moderators. We can all improve here. No one is above this.

 

[SpeedWay]

3) CN could simply make The Clinic restricted, either through a special permission to those who request it, or to those who reach a certain post level (which would mean no instant registrations and disruptions).

+1. Most cults and extreme paramilitary militias go to great lengths to a implement a strategy similar to this, albeit offline, and it works just fine. Just don't drink the Kool-Aid or believe those respectable types who preach there's no reason to panic. Get them before they get you.