should vino be forgiven ?

[Ferminal]

Exactly Ferminal - but this really doesn't seem to be about repentance and forgiveness but simply that Vino is an easy scapegoat. There's more than a little racism in the twittings of mini Phinney and his ilk. I suspect someone like Sean Kelly doesn't witter on about such things - as an old pro he knows the score.

I was thinking much the same earlier in the week.

Even mainstream media here, which rarely reports on cycling picked up on "Vino's win being soured by his 2007 positive" or something along those lines. I honestly don't think Valverde would receive this much flak if he won a monument. How is Vino worse than Valverde? What about Millar when he won a stage of the Vuelta?

Dopers in Australia elicit almost a sympathetic response from the media... Yet Vino, the evil man from a former-Soviet State will always be seen as the biggest doper in cycling.

Why Vino?

 

[Jonathan]

im neither religious nor catholic. but what i dont need is to be told how to express myself in a post and how to frame a question. if you dont like it, you can take a walk and go pound some sand.

what i find moronic and strange is your instructions on how *everybody should* think.

Cobblestones makes a good point: forgiveness is not some kind of policy that we can collectively apply. Each of us chooses to forgive or not. Letting those personal choices mix with the formal process Vinokourov has faced isn't helping the issue in any way.

And the critique about the wording is a significant observation about how you chose to phrase your post. Anyone can say "that is not the right way to address the matter", to do so is a normal part of a discussion. Cobblestones wasn't pointing out he simply didn't like it, he makes quite clear that talking about Vinokourov in terms of 'sin' etc. is a bad idea.

Finally, I interpret the "everybody should" more as a matter of fact: we can only accept the fact that Vinokourov is allowed to race, regardless of forgiveness.

As for the original question, I don't think it's mine to answer. Only people who have actually been damaged by Vinokourov are in the lofty position of possibly forgiving him for anything. Personally I don't feel slighted by him; we all know what it takes to compete at the top level.

Forgiveness is for Haven Hamilton towards Tyler, Greg Lemond towards Will Geogheggehehan (??). That sort of thing.

 

[Jamsque]

Of course Vino winning this has stirred up more than Millar winning a Vuelta TT. All questions of character and remorse aside, Vino is a very high-profile rider who has won monuments and Grand Tours in the past, and at one time was a top Tour de France contender. Of course him coming back and winning a monument fairly soon after the end of his suspension is going to get more notice than a TT specialist with good but unspectacular palmares winning a third-week time trial in the least prestigious grand tour.

 

[python]

Totally, and I think python perhaps could (should?) see Cobblestone's previous comment in this way: if we insist on some sort of forgiveness, would it then become a game of "how good is my forgiveness"? Because we all know who would play that one well... For me, ugly as it may seem, to remove the oxygen of publicity via a lifetime ban would be an option.

But I want to say more broadly here that I also recognise that the sort of absolutism I've been talking about above has a lot in common with some of the world's less savoury governing regimes. So for me, it's a heart versus head thing. I know what I'd like to do with folks like Vino, but I also know that it isn't really practical. Again, it doesn't change my vote, which is from the heart.

let me address your previous posts in this one post. glad you said it ('a vote from the heart') not me because i was tempted to use "emotional' in characterization of those who are for life-long banishment. but i did not want to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. yes, advocating that a fist-time offender deserves a permanent ban whilst fully realizing it's not that effective a solution to the problem, can be called a protest vote, a vote in anger.

that's fine.

moving on my choice of words...as i noticed earlier, i'm not a religious person and it should be obvious from my posting history i don't preach anything but appreciate facts, evidence and reason. however, there are many facets to life and i can not be responsible for the images many people see when they read someone's words they'd prefer to be different.

 

[Ferminal]

Of course Vino winning this has stirred up more than Millar winning a Vuelta TT. All questions of character and remorse aside, Vino is a very high-profile rider who has won monuments and Grand Tours in the past, and at one time was a top Tour de France contender. Of course him coming back and winning a monument fairly soon after the end of his suspension is going to get more notice than a TT specialist with good but unspectacular palmares winning a third-week time trial in the least prestigious grand tour.

So basically, people are just accusing Vino of doping again?

Since his return no COURT OF LAW has convicted Vino of doping, so I don't know why he deserves this treatment.

 

[Jamsque]

So basically, people are just accusing Vino of doping again?

Since his return no COURT OF LAW has convicted Vino of doping, so I don't know why he deserves this treatment.

No no no, that's not what I am saying at all. I was just responding to your post about Vino's return to winning getting a lot more press coverage than, for example, David Millar's.

 

[Ferminal]

No no no, that's not what I am saying at all. I was just responding to Ferminal's post about Vino's return to winning getting a lot more press coverage than, for example, David Millar's.

I know you're not, but I think there are certain subtle (or not so subtle) hints of accusation of cheating from Phinney etc.

 

[Jamsque]

I know you're not, but I think there are certain subtle (or not so subtle) hints of accusation of cheating from Phinney etc.

I think we can all agree, regardless of our personal opinions of Vino, that Phinney is being foolish. People in glass houses, etc.

 

[python]

Cobblestones makes a good point: forgiveness is not some kind of policy that we can collectively apply. .

i did not ask you to collectively apply anything.

i asked for your vote.

i am not interested in the images it brings to your mind, but the opinion.

in many cases where a poll and it's options did not meet my POV, i simply did not vote. I also did not tell the OP (neither privately nor publicly) his/her poll was moronic or what it should be. when my opinion mattered i simply expressed it.

 

[Cobblestones]

Finally, I interpret the "everybody should" more as a matter of fact: we can only accept the fact that Vinokourov is allowed to race, regardless of forgiveness.

Precisely. You should accept if you want to deal with reality.

 

[TRDean]

I think we can all agree, regardless of our personal opinions of Vino, that Phinney is being foolish. People in glass houses, etc.

The Phinney twitter got me thinking too...I will give him the benefit as he is still young...I compare his to McEwens twitter and they are completely different. I do concur, Phinney was foolish...

 

[python]

Precisely. You should accept if you want to deal with reality.

your reality? the way you see it or is there such a thing is another view ?

 

[luckyboy]

Although I will add a reservation to this by saying that it is a disgrace that the sanction is so light. He is straight back racing at Pro Tour level after just 2 years. The old 2 year suspension & another 2 years where a rider was unable to join a Pro Tour team was a more appropriate sanction imo.

This is a good point. Vino, Millar etc.. shouldn't be allowed in the PT straightaway when Ricco, Chicken et al are languishing on ProConti teams struggling to get into big races.

In agreement with the people who have said life bans though. I'm not voting because if there were life bans, this question would be largely irrelevant.

 

[L'arriviste]

...because if there were life bans, this question would be largely irrelevant.

Which is probably one of the better - and more logical than most of mine - reasons for a lifetime ban.

 

[Jamsque]

My current favourite hypothetical punishment system is a lifetime ban for first offence UNLESS you provide evidence against your supplier, in which case you get the old two year ban.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I don't have a problem with him winning. I'm not a huge fan of his these days, so I'm not cheering with glee that he won LBL, but as others have said he has served his suspension and there shouldn't be any more suspicion about his cleanliness than there is about anyone else's.

I'm not asking for him to beg and grovel and wail and gnash his teeth and rend his clothing either, I just feel that the current way that suspensions go down seems to be dominated by omerta. In the current climate of world cycling a two-year suspension is treated pretty much like some sort of injury that isn't your fault. If you get caught doping, you protest innocence, demand a B-sample test, and then appeal to the CAS. Once that fails, you spend two years on solo training rides and then come right back into the top level of the sport without ever even having to acknowledge that you did anything wrong at all.

But think back to that other poll where a majority here said that they would dope if that was what it took to be a pro. Well that is what it takes, and so that is what they all do. Why wouldn't they feel the same about being caught doping as they would about a bad crash on an alpine descent? It is just one of the risks they take in order to be competitive. Don't blame the individual, blame the system.
Who knows if Vino won LBL clean? Since I doubt anyone he beat was, I doubt that he was either. But why should he be suddenly held to a higher standard than the rest simply because he has had the misfortune to be one of the few who got caught?

 

[flicker]

This is a good point. Vino, Millar etc.. shouldn't be allowed in the PT straightaway when Ricco, Chicken et al are languishing on ProConti teams struggling to get into big races.

In agreement with the people who have said life bans though. I'm not voting because if there were life bans, this question would be largely irrelevant.

Different situation seeing how Vino helped form a major Pro-
Tour team.

Rassmussen out and out lied and was caught. From the interviews I read given by Ricco he seems like a young advocate for doping.

 

[luckyboy]

Different situation seeing how Vino helped form a major Pro-Tour team.

Yeah I was thinking that when I was posting. Doesn't detract from the point though.

 

[karlboss]

Poll question..."should". Should implies I can tell other people what to think and do...i can't. People will feel what they feel think what they think. I'm glad to see vino racing and winning again. He certainly hasn't hurt me...so for me there is nothing to forgive.

 

[Jonathan]

i did not ask you to collectively apply anything.

i asked for your vote.

"Should Vino be forgiven?" If you're putting that to a yes/no vote, you're asking for a collective moral judgement; i.e. collectively applying a standard. The big words reinforce that.

i am not interested in the images it brings to your mind, but the opinion.

That doesn't make sense.

in many cases where a poll and it's options did not meet my POV, i simply did not vote. I also did not tell the OP (neither privately nor publicly) his/her poll was moronic or what it should be. when my opinion mattered i simply expressed it.

Good for you. Please write what you think is best.

 

[python]

Poll question..."should". Should implies I can tell other people what to think and do...i can't. People will feel what they feel think what they think. I'm glad to see vino racing and winning again. He certainly hasn't hurt me...so for me there is nothing to forgive.

i think your brain saw something mine didn't when formulating the poll. or at least i never heard that should with a question marked implied "i can tell other people what to think". I cal it mental distortion or misrepresentation at the least.

 

[karlboss]

i think your brain saw something mine didn't when formulating the poll. or at least i never heard that should with a question marked implied "i can tell other people what to think". I cal it mental distortion or misrepresentation at the least.

Jshould (shd)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty

 

[python]

That doesn't make sense.

your entire post dos not make sense because you are over-interpreting and overachieving a very simple opinion forum poll. there is no collective meaning except the one in your own brain. there is no conditioning and padding of the results except the people having a choice on what i meant to ask.

 

[python]

Jshould (shd)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty

take the semantics to a language forum. if you feel obligated by a simple question should? whilst the absolute majority had no problems with it, you are having visions prolem or delusion particularly after being explained.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I think these pros that publicly speak out, criticising caught dopers, do so, for one reason and one reason alone.
To create and build for themselves a "clean" persona that allows them to be both fan and media friendly.

Given the environment of their work-place, they would have to be incredibly naive, not to be able to supply some worthwhile information to the authorities.
It's not as if these riders aren't mixing with the "wrong stuff".

There is a big difference between being a cheat basher and an Omerta breaker.