The Climb (Froome's first autobiography)

[Digger]

If someone supports Basso, who only attempted to dope, does he still have blood on his hands? Dilemna.

 

[martinvickers]

The funny thing is, Martin doesn't hold the people who actually defended doping, responsible. Wiggins defended lance time and time again and even shot down a witness, but he isn't responsible.

The world, and the world of doping, doesn't begin or end with Lance, Hitch. That's just childish. In so far as he defended Lance, damn right Wiggins is responsible.

He doesn't hold vaughters personally responsible for pantanis death, even though jv was actually doping at the time (not that I would either but I don't hold present day fans responsible).

Actually, I hold Vaughters and his ilk highly responsible. It's one reason the Slipstream project is so important. Some outside possiblity of atonement.

But unlike the keyboard warriors here, the La Flo's of this world, at least he took the same risks with himself as he recognised in others. His own blood was on the line. Not like the parasitical urges of this place.

And, as I said, I could nearly understand a fan who took a three wise monkeys approach, ignored the doping issue entirely and just watched the race - at least there's some kind of moral consistency there - "on their heads be it".

But to root for some dopers over other possible dopers? On grounds connected with the supposed doping? Self serving b*****t, masquerading as a moral position. "Oh, the hypocrisy!" they cry goes up - from the biggest hypocrital position its possible to take on the issue- picking favourite dopers while decrying doping in others

But a decade later, fans who watch a race on tv and mark in the privacy of their own homes for one guy over another, oh, there's your guilty party. These are the people with Piratas blood on their hands.

Unbelievable

What you can and can't believe is a matter of utter unimportance. It's the rhetorical equivalent of blowing a raspberry.

The Pro Sport exists because of sponsors. End of.

Sponsors engage because of access to fans. End of.

So when fans support dopers, and knowingly support the success of dopers, they create an attractive situation for sponsors to ignore doping in favour of success. That attraction incentivises doping in riders, because it links the money stream to their pocket through fans acceptance of their riding.

If fans chose to make it clear that they would not support doped riders, or the sponsors that pay for them, that undermines that. It doesn't destroy it completely, because some riders will try and hold both lines at one - the hypocrisy I mentioned pages ago.

But sure what does it matter, eh?

This morning it's announced that a World and Olympic champion, a russian walker, got a two year ban for GW1516. That one that causes serious cancers throughout the body. The sixteenth walker from that coach, apparently, to be busted.

Apparently, he picks them as kids and 'trains' them on. On GW1516, and presumably AICAR.

Children.

But, maybe his walkers have 'panache', right?

"Not my problem, mister."

Right.

 

[red_flanders]

My feeling is that there is some truth in that rooting for dopers enables them to some small degree if it's done publicly.

How do we know who is doping again? We know lack of positives is nearly meaningless, so if we go by that measure we (the proverbial "we", that is) end up rooting for dopers like Indurain, Bugno, Armstrong, Schleck, Froome, Horner, Ullrich and scores more for years and years. No blood on your hands for those cheers? Even when the great majority of fans know they're doping?

So someone wants to say they will not root for anyone convicted. Defensible but meaningless. I watched Horner and Nibali duke it out last year in a great battle on the Angliru. Who to root for? Neither has ever been popped that I knew of at the time. Or was I OK and free from "blood" because neither has been popped, no matter what the reality of whether they actually dope?

Not a black and white world. I have my values, but I'm not so sure of them that I would cry "blood" about others'.

 

[MrRoboto]

You mean guys who support Horner and Contador and only question Froome/Sky. Oh that wouldn't be you, would it?

Is there anyone on the clinic who believes Froome dopes, but doesn't believe Contador does? I doubt it.

 

[the sceptic]

You mean guys who support Horner and Contador and only question Froome/Sky. Oh that wouldn't be you, would it?

I think you will see that I have pointed out other obvious dopers too over the past 2 years. But yes, sky get most of my attention, I admit that.

 

[martinvickers]

What!!!!

Get lost Vickers

Be as mad as you like, Flo. I couldn't give a toss. But the point stands, like it or not.

Not so funny now, are you, Flo?

 

[martinvickers]

Vickers is big supporter of 100metre sprinters.....talk about blood on hands, when is the last time one of them were clean?

When was the last time one of them died in their bed? Flo Jo, maybe?

 

[Digger]

So Walsh has blood on his hands now too. Awesome!

 

[Merckx index]

"Froome weighed between 65-66kg at the Dauphine, Contador was 63kg. They produced about 400-410 watts at threshold and when they attack, they can hold 430 watts for between 20-30 minutes. Froome accelerates for 20-30 seconds, with peaks of 450-480 wats. The he eases back and stays at 380-400 watts. Due to physiological limits, this phase can last between 10-15 minutes, not more.

If the weights are correct, that is 6.8 watts/kg for Bert and 6.5-6.6 for Froome. That sure looks suspicious to me.

Not sure how Slongo gets his data, but from the article it sounds like timing and VAM. If so, when he gives watts estimates, what he may mean is watts/kg with a fixed weight, not necessarily that of either rider. Otherwise, Contador would be riding significantly faster than Froome, and except for the final stage that wasn't the case. I can't remember what the standard weight used for watts is, but maybe 70 kg, which would mean their 20-30 minute peak was around 6.15, which is reasonable.

According to Gazzetta dello Sport, the riders were woken at 6:15 in the morning for a surprise UCI Biological Passport blood test on Thursday, with the inspector apparently entering the riders' room to find the riders. The blood samples were then taken at a small table and chairs between two floors of the hotel in an area open to the public, with little regard for the rider's privacy.

Froome must have loved that.

 

[martinvickers]

revolting. insinuating barracking for a rider is the reason said rider might die / have an accident in a race due to doping.

is what I typed to report the post, but reporting is broken.

Boo hoo, Dear Wiggo? Be revolted. As if I give a toss what revolts you

Address the issue, or run and cry to a mod; whatever floats your boat. The point stands.

 

[gooner]

Is there anyone on the clinic who believes Froome dopes, but doesn't believe Contador does? I doubt it.

That's not the point, they had no problem in the past celebrating Contador's successes doped to the gills or won't have either with any potential success in the future.

It's decried in relation Froome's but the same people celebrate and ignore it with regards to other instances.

 

[martinvickers]

go **** yourself Martin.

Classy, as you might say, Sceptic. Truth seems to sting a bit today.

Hell, at least Hitch and Red F make their actual arguments, take their positions; there's something admirable in that. You just try snide, and then that fails, pure abuse. Again.

Sheesh.

 

[martinvickers]

If someone supports Basso, who only attempted to dope, does he still have blood on his hands? Dilemna.

It's wider than any specific would be doper. But in principle? If you think he's still doping, or don't know but don't care, then yes, there's a risk.

 

[red_flanders]

Is there anyone on the clinic who believes Froome dopes, but doesn't believe Contador does? I doubt it.

There are a few–8 voted for that option in this poll: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22302

The majority believe both to be doping.

 

[Digger]

It's wider than any specific would be doper. But in principle? If you think he's still doping, or don't know but don't care, then yes, there's a risk.

wilful ignorance - surely those guys also have blood on their hands.

 

[the sceptic]

Classy, as you might say, Sceptic. Truth seems to sting a bit today.

Hell, at least Hitch and Red F make their actual arguments, take their positions; there's something admirable in that. You just try snide, and then that fails, pure abuse. Again.

Sheesh.

Why should I waste my time trying argue with a worthless troll like you? I hope your next ban is permanent.

 

[SeriousSam]

And, as I said, I could nearly understand a fan who took a three wise monkeys approach, ignored the doping issue entirely and just watched the race - at least there's some kind of moral consistency there - "on their heads be it".

Some consistency indeed, consistency that is sorely lacking in your position. Why haven't you given up following the sport? Following the sport creates incentives to dope, leading to blood on your hands.

If you selfishly must follow the sport, why don't you try to minimize expected blood on our hands and only root for riders very unlikely to dope? Ie no one who has a shot at winning anything. If you actually cared about the thing you profess to care about, that's what you ought to do.

The Pro Sport exists because of sponsors. End of.

Sponsors engage because of access to fans. End of.

So when fans support dopers, and knowingly support the success of dopers, they create an attractive situation for sponsors to ignore doping in favour of success. That attraction incentivises doping in riders, because it links the money stream to their pocket through fans acceptance of their riding.

No, you aren't quite seeing far enough here. When fans are willing to pay for the sport, incentives to dope are inevitably created. Because winning in a sport people care about, and are putting money into, is rewarding. It's what makes sports people dope. This is a much, much more significant effect (wrt incentive creation) than who you root for.

If fans chose to make it clear that they would not support doped riders, or the sponsors that pay for them, that undermines that. It doesn't destroy it completely, because some riders will try and hold both lines at one - the hypocrisy I mentioned pages ago.

So your whole point is that not openly supporting known dopers (but feel free to support highly probable dopers) leads to slightly reduced incentives to dope? This is the moral reason to prefer a rider whose absence you lamented in your initial post?

I'll repeat my earlier belief, that no one, including you, forms preferences over riders based on this (as it turned out, poorly thought through) moral calculus.

 

[martinvickers]

My feeling is that there is some truth in that rooting for dopers enables them to some small degree if it's done publicly.

How do we know who is doping again? We know lack of positives is nearly meaningless, so if we go by that measure we (the proverbial "we", that is) end up rooting for dopers like Indurain, Bugno, Armstrong, Schleck, Froome, Horner, Ullrich and scores more for years and years. No blood on your hands for those cheers? Even when the great majority of fans know they're doping?

So someone wants to say they will not root for anyone convicted. Defensible but meaningless. I watched Horner and Nibali duke it out last year in a great battle on the Angliru. Who to root for? Neither has ever been popped that I knew of at the time. Or was I OK and free from "blood" because neither has been popped, no matter what the reality of whether they actually dope?

Not a black and white world. I have my values, but I'm not so sure of them that I would cry "blood" about others'.

Let's be clear, my first mention of blood was about me, no other poster - others took it as an insult. fine. Be insulted. Point stands.

Your arguments are pretty fair ones. I don't agree with all of them obviously, but I appreciate the attempt to actual discuss. It seems to escape others.

 

[red_flanders]

wilful ignorance - surely those guys also have blood on their hands.

I would argue they have the most, "blood", melodrama aside. But that's just me.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Better hope to God it's not Berti's blood on some roadside, then....remember how upset you got over his fit video. Let's hope for your sake that's as bad as it ever gets...

Oh you're right Martin, I was shocked when I first saw that video... 4 ****ing years ago.

revolting. insinuating barracking for a rider is the reason said rider might die / have an accident in a race due to doping.

is what I typed to report the post, but reporting is broken.

go **** yourself Martin.

QFT

 

[thehog]

I would argue they have the most, "blood", melodrama aside. But that's just me.

D1ck Cheney would be proud of such rhetoric

 

[martinvickers]

wilful ignorance - surely those guys also have blood on their hands.

as I said.

But let's also be clear - it's not 'wilful ignorance' just to disagree with your views on whose doping. That's called a difference of opinion.

 

[LaFlorecita]

But unlike the keyboard warriors here, the La Flo's of this world, at least he took the same risks with himself as he recognised in others. His own blood was on the line. Not like the parasitical urges of this place.

Have I now officially been upgraded from crazy stalker chick to keyboard warrior?

 

[red_flanders]

Let's be clear, my first mention of blood was about me, no other poster - others took it as an insult. fine. Be insulted. Point stands.

Your arguments are pretty fair ones. I don't agree with all of them obviously, but I appreciate the attempt to actual discuss. It seems to escape others.

I'm not insulted. I think asking ourselves if we have some part to play is a reasonable question, which you put forward by giving your view. But I also think it's an un-tenable stance, resulting from a dirty sport where we all must rationalize something in order to watch and enjoy it. Worth noting that you choose not the answer the questions in the scenario above. Who did you root for in the Vuelta? Who is clean? Both un-answerable if rooting for dopers puts blood on one's hands. We either all have some or we don't.

I remember back in the day when the rabid Armstrong defenders attacked Pantani as a doper, day after day. I also made critical comments of him, though I had by Hautacam in 2000 had my eyes wide open WRT Armstrong and criticized him as well. But when Pantani died I did wonder if all the noise we create on these boards has some part to play. Probably self-centered melodrama but I understand the same question coming up now.

The real problem is that the arguments herein are the proverbial re-arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's a polluted environment where no one can be close to it and retain any kind of pure ethical stance. It's inevitable that some will fool themselves into feeling they can, but the arguments never stand up.

 

[red_flanders]

as I said.

But let's also be clear - it's not 'wilful ignorance' just to disagree with your views on whose doping. That's called a difference of opinion.

There comes a point when there is no difference between the two. Ventoux 2013 was this point.

You sound exactly like the Armstrong, Ullrich and Pantani defenders on boards like this one in the early 2000's.