Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dan2016]

To the above, 'chasing the tail' arguments against legalised doping don't take into account the nature of the system.

Top-down imposition and enforcement of arbitrary rules is 'systemic violence', in the words of old Benj. As are contracts in the same context.
'Cheating' is an arbitrary concept, entirely context based. Regarding doping, 'cheating' isn't some kind of intrinsic universal truth; the idea can't even be easily defined. Cheats and nasty dopers vs the clean and the pure; 'keep fighting the good fight' kids. That's black and white thinking, digested and regurgitated cultural propaganda.

We don't have to think within the current framework. We can propose an entirely different framework. Genuine workers (riders) autonomy. They decide. We don't know the outcome because it's never been tried, mainly because the cultural narrative preventing it is so deeply embedded. Actually we maybe kinda do half-know the outcome: riders dope. But the dynamics of that are in a constrained system, not an autonomous one.

We don't call an astronaut a cheat for taking some amphetamines for his space flight because there is absolutely no framework in which to define cheating in that context. Maybe that's a bad example, I'm not sure, I think it roughly makes my point though. Nobody is being cheated in an autonomous system because all actors are free actors.

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making posting in an insomniatic haze.

 

[Netserk]

But how do they decide? Will amateurs have a say? What about race organizers, are they just supposed to tolerate whatever the riders decide, or do they get to decide the rules in play for their own races? What about the public, who lets the riders ride on public roads?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

To the above, 'chasing the tail' arguments against legalised doping don't take into account the nature of the system.

Top-down imposition and enforcement of arbitrary rules is 'systemic violence', in the words of old Benj. As are contracts in the same context.
'Cheating' is an arbitrary concept, entirely context based. Regarding doping, 'cheating' isn't some kind of intrinsic universal truth; the idea can't even be easily defined. Cheats and nasty dopers vs the clean and the pure; 'keep fighting the good fight' kids. That's black and white thinking, digested and regurgitated cultural propaganda.

We don't have to think within the current framework. We can propose an entirely different framework. Genuine workers (riders) autonomy. They decide. We don't know the outcome because it's never been tried, mainly because the cultural narrative preventing it is so deeply embedded. Actually we maybe kinda do half-know the outcome: riders dope. But the dynamics of that are in a constrained system, not an autonomous one.

We don't call an astronaut a cheat for taking some amphetamines for his space flight because there is absolutely no framework in which to define cheating in that context. Maybe that's a bad example, I'm not sure, I think it roughly makes my point though. Nobody is being cheated in an autonomous system because all actors are free actors.

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making posting in an insomniatic haze.

we are already dealing with a system that endorses doping innit

 

[blackcat]

Re:

But how do they decide? Will amateurs have a say? What about race organizers, are they just supposed to tolerate whatever the riders decide, or do they get to decide the rules in play for their own races? What about the public, who lets the riders ride on public roads?

the paradox in cycling, the rules have never existed. trains. motors. cars (Och).* that was not the Sveridga spelling of and. *It is Och. Ochowitz. The manager at BMC. He famously did not ride the route of an early US 1980s era race. race radio will be able to tell.

cycling, and had trains, motors, and automobiles.

in this context, it is perfectly understandable, that we got Cancellara. rules have never existed.

the Sveridga spelling of and. see my complete dismissal of any concept of grammar and rules

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

But how do they decide? Will amateurs have a say? What about race organizers, are they just supposed to tolerate whatever the riders decide, or do they get to decide the rules in play for their own races? What about the public, who lets the riders ride on public roads?

the paradox in cycling, the rules have never existed. trains. motors. cars (Och).* that was not the Sveridga spelling of and. *It is Och. Ochowitz. The manager at BMC. He famously did not ride the route of an early US 1980s era race. race radio will be able to tell.

cycling, and had trains, motors, and automobiles.

in this context, it is perfectly understandable, that we got Cancellara. rules have never existed.

the Sveridga spelling of and. see my complete dismissal of any concept of grammar and rules

RR doesn't come around much anymore. He had lunch with LRP, and was assured that Sky are clean and have tailwinds. There was dissent on the boards about this. Wasn't long after that he sorta stopped coming around very much.

 

[T_S_A_R]

Re:

To the above, 'chasing the tail' arguments against legalised doping don't take into account the nature of the system.

Top-down imposition and enforcement of arbitrary rules is 'systemic violence', in the words of old Benj. As are contracts in the same context.
'Cheating' is an arbitrary concept, entirely context based. Regarding doping, 'cheating' isn't some kind of intrinsic universal truth; the idea can't even be easily defined. Cheats and nasty dopers vs the clean and the pure; 'keep fighting the good fight' kids. That's black and white thinking, digested and regurgitated cultural propaganda.

We don't have to think within the current framework. We can propose an entirely different framework. Genuine workers (riders) autonomy. They decide. We don't know the outcome because it's never been tried, mainly because the cultural narrative preventing it is so deeply embedded. Actually we maybe kinda do half-know the outcome: riders dope. But the dynamics of that are in a constrained system, not an autonomous one.

We don't call an astronaut a cheat for taking some amphetamines for his space flight because there is absolutely no framework in which to define cheating in that context. Maybe that's a bad example, I'm not sure, I think it roughly makes my point though. Nobody is being cheated in an autonomous system because all actors are free actors.

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making posting in an insomniatic haze.

I've seen that kind of argument for doping before but it completely falls apart when you consider that sporting competition is only possible when the competitors agree to follow common rules. You may as well say you are allowing footballers to use their hands or a rugby team to put 15 men in a scrum in the name of workers autonomy. Indeed why not a motor in a bike to reduce exploitation.

As it stands anyone participating in a Wada sport agrees to a follow that code as part of the contract of their participation. Anyone who dopes is breaking that contract defrauding their fellow competitors and paying spectators.

If athletes want to dope let them set up their own competitions to do so. I would not expect much financial reward to follow them.

 

[blackcat]

Netserk, the amateurs you speak of, as it stands, they dont get to decide as it is. They are just thrust into a dirty peloton that they never made a compact.

All the details in 'legalizing' qua 'legalizing' PEDs, is actually, removing a veil of ignorance. Now everyone knows. You still have autonomy and agency, just in Milgram's experiment. But, you don't have to choose to take any pharmaceuticals. You can still race to win, just in a local B grade parking lot crit.

You can still attempt to race to win, clean, in the peloton. I am not preventing you, but your genetics may.

Nothing changes, well, it may be more safe actually. But nothing changes, those who choose to take pharmaceutical enhancement, will still take pharmaceutical enhancement innit

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I've seen that kind of argument for doping before but it completely falls apart when you consider that sporting competition is only possible when the competitors agree to follow common rules. You may as well say you are allowing footballers to use their hands or a rugby team to put 15 men in a scrum in the name of workers autonomy. Indeed why not a motor in a bike to reduce exploitation.

As it stands anyone participating in a Wada sport agrees to a follow that code as part of the contract of their participation. Anyone who dopes is breaking that contract defrauding their fellow competitors and paying spectators.

If athletes want to dope let them set up their own competitions to do so. I would not expect much financial reward to follow them.

but as it stands, there are no common rules. You are allowed to dope, you are allowed to use the motor. if you get away with it.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

I've seen that kind of argument for doping before but it completely falls apart when you consider that sporting competition is only possible when the competitors agree to follow common rules. You may as well say you are allowing footballers to use their hands or a rugby team to put 15 men in a scrum in the name of workers autonomy. Indeed why not a motor in a bike to reduce exploitation.

As it stands anyone participating in a Wada sport agrees to a follow that code as part of the contract of their participation. Anyone who dopes is breaking that contract defrauding their fellow competitors and paying spectators.

If athletes want to dope let them set up their own competitions to do so. I would not expect much financial reward to follow them.

but as it stands, there are no common rules. You are allowed to dope, you are allowed to use the motor. if you get away with it.

HAHAHAHAHA Jesus christ

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I've seen that kind of argument for doping before but it completely falls apart when you consider that sporting competition is only possible when the competitors agree to follow common rules. You may as well say you are allowing footballers to use their hands or a rugby team to put 15 men in a scrum in the name of workers autonomy. Indeed why not a motor in a bike to reduce exploitation.

As it stands anyone participating in a Wada sport agrees to a follow that code as part of the contract of their participation. Anyone who dopes is breaking that contract defrauding their fellow competitors and paying spectators.

If athletes want to dope let them set up their own competitions to do so. I would not expect much financial reward to follow them.

but as it stands, there are no common rules. You are allowed to dope, you are allowed to use the motor. if you get away with it.

there's insiders and outsiders in the insiders....

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I've seen that kind of argument for doping before but it completely falls apart when you consider that sporting competition is only possible when the competitors agree to follow common rules. You may as well say you are allowing footballers to use their hands or a rugby team to put 15 men in a scrum in the name of workers autonomy. Indeed why not a motor in a bike to reduce exploitation.

As it stands anyone participating in a Wada sport agrees to a follow that code as part of the contract of their participation. Anyone who dopes is breaking that contract defrauding their fellow competitors and paying spectators.

If athletes want to dope let them set up their own competitions to do so. I would not expect much financial reward to follow them.

but as it stands, there are no common rules. You are allowed to dope, you are allowed to use the motor. if you get away with it.

there's insiders and outsiders in the insiders....

it aint my position.

you know the popular Ferrari aphorism of the peloton,
it is not doping if it does not show up



that was not my line adopted by the peloton

 

[blackcat]

legal doping is safer doping.

we hear the endless refrain from the succour moms, about doping and safety. irony is, the succour mom lens, is actually more dangerous, than legalizing the doping. justify that u succour moms and wetnurses.


yo moderators, that is merely a phonetic portmanteau of succour + "soccer mom"

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

I've seen that kind of argument for doping before but it completely falls apart when you consider that sporting competition is only possible when the competitors agree to follow common rules. You may as well say you are allowing footballers to use their hands or a rugby team to put 15 men in a scrum in the name of workers autonomy. Indeed why not a motor in a bike to reduce exploitation.

Your argument isn't remotely logically equivalent. A false comparison. Legalised doping doesn't = allowing footballers to use their hands. You're using rhetoric and being a very silly billy (I'm being light-hearted of course, just in case of confusion, we're just chewin the fat here). It would only be equivalent if footballers already did use their hands as standard, and rugby scrums already did have 15 men, but the rules in both games prohibited it. Your argument is essentially: ''The rules are the rules are the rules''. Tautology.com.

As it stands anyone participating in a Wada sport agrees to a follow that code as part of the contract of their participation. Anyone who dopes is breaking that contract defrauding their fellow competitors and paying spectators.

The riders don't agree to follow this top-down imposed code, the evidence shows us that.
Equating the breach of a non legitimised contract with pejoratives like ''defrauding'' is cultural narrative stuff; honesty, integrity, do-it-for-the-kids etc.

We're not actually talking about change here. Doping is already endorsed. Not culturally endorsed but practically endorsed. Reality vs ideology.

If athletes want to dope let them set up their own competitions to do so. I would not expect much financial reward to follow them.

Yup, separate competitions, cleanz and doped, is a possible outcome. I'm talking about genuine autonomy here, and these kinds of outcomes are possible. That's good. We shouldn't impose our speculative assumptions as though they necessarily lead to obvious conclusions. Genuine autonomy seems to be some kind of radical concept but it's really not.

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

Netserk, the amateurs you speak of, as it stands, they dont get to decide as it is. They are just thrust into a dirty peloton that they never made a compact.

All the details in 'legalizing' qua 'legalizing' PEDs, is actually, removing a veil of ignorance. Now everyone knows. You still have autonomy and agency, just in Milgram's experiment. But, you don't have to choose to take any pharmaceuticals. You can still race to win, just in a local B grade parking lot crit.

You can still attempt to race to win, clean, in the peloton. I am not preventing you, but your genetics may.

Nothing changes, well, it may be more safe actually. But nothing changes, those who choose to take pharmaceutical enhancement, will still take pharmaceutical enhancement innit

Agreed, well said.

 

[Irondan]

General Announcement!

It seems this thread has wandered off into a general discussion about legal doping, please create a new thread or find one that fits this discussion rather than steering the Sky thread any further off course.

TIA

 

[blackcat]

Re:

General Announcement!

It seems this thread has wandered off into a general discussion about legal doping, please create a new thread or find one that fits this discussion rather than steering the Sky thread any further off course.

TIA

Dan I thought the #meta element, was indeed Sky is about legalizing doping. We are just extrapolating it, to its rightful apogee

TIA brain in vat at Sky, we put the brain back in

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

General Announcement!

It seems this thread has wandered off into a general discussion about legal doping, please create a new thread or find one that fits this discussion rather than steering the Sky thread any further off course.

TIA

Dan I thought the #meta element, was indeed Sky is about legalizing doping. We are just extrapolating it, to its rightful apogee

TIA brain in vat at Sky, we put the brain back in

I only say that because I haven't seen Sky mentioned in many posts, it's fine to continue as long as people know that it's Sky that we're talking about.

Cheers

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

General Announcement!

It seems this thread has wandered off into a general discussion about legal doping, please create a new thread or find one that fits this discussion rather than steering the Sky thread any further off course.

TIA

I think we've just gone like a bit adjunctivistical. Still Team Marginals related. I think so. Probably.
A winding road around a gigantic Marginal Gains Monolith. A maze surrounding a giant Gollum phallus.

marginalcockk.com

 

[Beech Mtn]

To bring it back to Sky:
Geraint Thomas has no business climbing within 17 seconds of Quintana.

edit-
I see there is a Geeeee thread. Will take it over there instead.

PS. Is there any Sky rider who doesn't have his own clinic thread?

 

[Dan2016]

Keee Peee and Seee don't have threads.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

To bring it back to Sky:
Geraint Thomas has no business climbing within 17 seconds of Quintana.

edit-
I see there is a Geeeee thread. Will take it over there instead.

PS. Is there any Sky rider who doesn't have his own clinic thread?

Why not, he's shown form before in the mountains in many other races ...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

To bring it back to Sky:
Geraint Thomas has no business climbing within 17 seconds of Quintana.

edit-
I see there is a Geeeee thread. Will take it over there instead.

PS. Is there any Sky rider who doesn't have his own clinic thread?

Why not, he's shown form before in the mountains in many other races ...

Might as well win?

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

To bring it back to Sky:
Geraint Thomas has no business climbing within 17 seconds of Quintana.

edit-
I see there is a Geeeee thread. Will take it over there instead.

PS. Is there any Sky rider who doesn't have his own clinic thread?

Why not, he's shown form before in the mountains in many other races ...

Indeed, he's beaten Quintana before.

Pretty good for a pursuit rider who has the right kind of physiology for the cobbled classics.

There's two other pursuit riders who have broken through on the high mountains to become GT winners: Evegni Berzin and good old Bradley. There's no doubt about how either of them changed their characteristics to make the impossible possible. Thomas clearly unfolding on this axiom.

The rest of the ex-pursuiters try to pickpocket the sprinters on the flats from 4kms out - Ekimov - & help power a TTT & occasionally pick up a high placing in an individual TT.

It's these kinds of transformations that make doping sirens ring as loud they possibly go.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

To bring it back to Sky:
Geraint Thomas has no business climbing within 17 seconds of Quintana.

edit-
I see there is a Geeeee thread. Will take it over there instead.

PS. Is there any Sky rider who doesn't have his own clinic thread?

Why not, he's shown form before in the mountains in many other races ...

Indeed, he's beaten Quintana before.

Pretty good for a pursuit rider who has the right kind of physiology for the cobbled classics.

There's two other pursuit riders who have broken through on the high mountains to become GT winners: Evegni Berzin and good old Bradley. There's no doubt about how either of them changed their characteristics to make the impossible possible. Thomas clearly unfolding on this axiom.

The rest of the ex-pursuiters try to pickpocket the sprinters on the flats from 4kms out - Ekimov - & help power a TTT & occasionally pick up a high placing in an individual TT.

It's these kinds of transformations that make doping sirens ring as loud they possibly go.

hincapie, ogrady, boardman, obree, bobridge, meyer bros, mcgee, bartko, roberts,

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

To bring it back to Sky:
Geraint Thomas has no business climbing within 17 seconds of Quintana.

edit-
I see there is a Geeeee thread. Will take it over there instead.

PS. Is there any Sky rider who doesn't have his own clinic thread?

Why not, he's shown form before in the mountains in many other races ...

Indeed, he's beaten Quintana before.

Pretty good for a pursuit rider who has the right kind of physiology for the cobbled classics.

There's two other pursuit riders who have broken through on the high mountains to become GT winners: Evegni Berzin and good old Bradley. There's no doubt about how either of them changed their characteristics to make the impossible possible. Thomas clearly unfolding on this axiom.

The rest of the ex-pursuiters try to pickpocket the sprinters on the flats from 4kms out - Ekimov - & help power a TTT & occasionally pick up a high placing in an individual TT.

It's these kinds of transformations that make doping sirens ring as loud they possibly go.

hincapie, ogrady, boardman, obree, bobridge, meyer bros, mcgee, bartko, roberts,

Kindly leave obree out of this, thank you.