The Clinic generating public discourse?

It seems to me that the kind of discourses that go on here have transitioned into the public sphere.

I've been amazed to see Froome and Sky get the kind of scrutiny they are getting during the tour.

If you look at how The Clinic functions on this forum, it is sort of like the unconscious - repressed away in its own dirty sphere, so that the 'ordinary' (i.e. ego) level can keep functioning normally.

In this years tour, we're seeing the gap between the two domains close. Discourses about 'the race' are taking place in a context and climate of doping history and genuine skepticism. Journo's are asking clinic type questions. Brailsford is on the defensive about watts etc.

I find this extremely interesting. Of course, I'm not suggesting that The Clinic is itself the primary cause of the change in discourse; but perhaps it is part of the chain of causation.

What do people think about this?
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
I think some of Those That Know Who They Are the Dawg complained about for inciting fans to poour Heineken at him may well be reading the clinic, and may well have been influenced by some of the discussion that happens here.
 
Some of the discussions, (I'm thinking of of course they all dope, they are cyclists) probably aren't that useful to people outside of here.

But the power thread, how easy is it to buy < XXX >, discussions on peptides, stimulants (legal OOC), the ketone stuff, massive weight loss.

That is useful stuff for a journalist to brief themselves with.
 
Mar 31, 2015
278
0
0
I think the press are short on stuff to write now it looks like Froome might have it in the bag. Whatever you beliefs on how clean or dirty the riders are the standard of journalism is total cack, find some accusations, present to sky, report on their response, go to lunch.
 
Nah. There is a general (if healthy) skepcisism overall and you can read it in social media (look at CN on facebook) in commentary sections on Youtube and it has even hitted Tour de France facebook page. What they have in common is nationalism:

*People from southern/eastern europe used to be under scrutiny and pointed against as their riders are used to be either called or known as cheaters and dopers in the anglo-press, jumps gleefully on this chance to point out the obvious.

*Butthurt Lance-fans who think their boy was a victim in a doping-infested environment and now sees the next big thing as equal doped as him.

*The usual sceptics (Clinic-clique)

*Non-cycling fans who doesnt even like cycling and just because compares it with its negative reputation, which is doping.

The Clinic has very little to do with this, if anything.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
The Hegelian said:
It seems to me that the kind of discourses that go on here have transitioned into the public sphere.

I've been amazed to see Froome and Sky get the kind of scrutiny they are getting during the tour.

If you look at how The Clinic functions on this forum, it is sort of like the unconscious - repressed away in its own dirty sphere, so that the 'ordinary' (i.e. ego) level can keep functioning normally.

In this years tour, we're seeing the gap between the two domains close. Discourses about 'the race' are taking place in a context and climate of doping history and genuine skepticism. Journo's are asking clinic type questions. Brailsford is on the defensive about watts etc.

I find this extremely interesting. Of course, I'm not suggesting that The Clinic is itself the primary cause of the change in discourse; but perhaps it is part of the chain of causation.

What do people think about this?
I think it is heightened. anonymity enables discussion.

have Sky's propaganda been a backlash against this? They are operating with impunity and the press are their collective stenographer. The press cannot keep on publishing their lies.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
More engagement on twitter, IMO.

Same people with the same message, different medium.
This^^^^^^^ lots of posters from the clinic are also making similar posts of Twitter.

Teams with a huge PR smoke screen monitor this and react to it. Also more and more 'Hacks' are scouring twitter to get information.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

ice&fire said:
The clinic is just a resonance box for those who dwell inside it
It is actually the basement in JV's Mom's house and we all take turns making snakeoil then posting what JV tells us to post. If we fail in out duty we have to wear a full green argyle boilersuit and eat chipotle......... :(
 
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
More engagement on twitter, IMO.

Same people with the same message, different medium.
Don't fully agree. Twitter has many flaws. Biggest of which are
1)140 characters.
2)No moderation
3) popularity rankings - the more popular the more people read.
4) no exposure to counterarguments. Can just follow people you already agree with.
5) 140 characters. Not enough for even 1 proper sentnence.
 
No doubt. And teams read it. From Vino4Ever to Madiot admitting his daily fix. And some teams participate. Look how "contributors" some pop out of the woodwork right now, reciting the party line. Some are fans trolling; I suspect that some of the most articulate ones are on the payroll.
 
Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
ice&fire said:
The clinic is just a resonance box for those who dwell inside it
this is not true. on twitter you get basically the same thing, on a much bigger scale.
When Brailsford and co. point their finger to what they call pseudo-scientists and irresponsible reporters they refer to high-profile people like Vayer, Tucker or Kimmage. AFAIK none of them posts here and I doubt they use this place as a source for what they say. I might be underrating the clinic; or you might be overrating it ;)
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Re: Re:

ice&fire said:
the sceptic said:
ice&fire said:
The clinic is just a resonance box for those who dwell inside it
this is not true. on twitter you get basically the same thing, on a much bigger scale.
When Brailsford and co. point their finger to what they call pseudo-scientists and irresponsible reporters they refer to high-profile people like Vayer, Tucker or Kimmage. AFAIK none of them posts here and I doubt they use this place as a source for what they say. I might be underrating the clinic; or you might be overrating it ;)
What does that have to do with anything?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Dear Wiggo said:
More engagement on twitter, IMO.

Same people with the same message, different medium.
Don't fully agree. Twitter has many flaws. Biggest of which are
1)140 characters.
2)No moderation
3) popularity rankings - the more popular the more people read.
4) no exposure to counterarguments. Can just follow people you already agree with.
5) 140 characters. Not enough for even 1 proper sentnence.
No understanding your disagreement. I did not say twitter did not have flaws, I said it had more engagement, the same people with the same messages, and is a different medium.

Disagreeing because there is a 140 character limit is illogical at best. Same with the rest of your points. I am speaking purely subjectively, but my gut feel says Digger is getting significantly more engagement than here also.
 
Apr 5, 2015
165
0
0
Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
ice&fire said:
the sceptic said:
ice&fire said:
The clinic is just a resonance box for those who dwell inside it
this is not true. on twitter you get basically the same thing, on a much bigger scale.
When Brailsford and co. point their finger to what they call pseudo-scientists and irresponsible reporters they refer to high-profile people like Vayer, Tucker or Kimmage. AFAIK none of them posts here and I doubt they use this place as a source for what they say. I might be underrating the clinic; or you might be overrating it ;)
What does that have to do with anything?
The fact that it`s reasonable to think that these guys get more attention when they say critical things than this forum? Aren`t the theme here if the clinic is genreating public discourse?
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
The Hitch said:
Dear Wiggo said:
More engagement on twitter, IMO.

Same people with the same message, different medium.
Don't fully agree. Twitter has many flaws. Biggest of which are
1)140 characters.
2)No moderation
3) popularity rankings - the more popular the more people read.
4) no exposure to counterarguments. Can just follow people you already agree with.
5) 140 characters. Not enough for even 1 proper sentnence.
No understanding your disagreement. I did not say twitter did not have flaws, I said it had more engagement, the same people with the same messages, and is a different medium.

Disagreeing because there is a 140 character limit is illogical at best. Same with the rest of your points. I am speaking purely subjectively, but my gut feel says Digger is getting significantly more engagement than here also.
I may be wrong but wasn't Wiggins' 'bone idle wankers' remark aimed at Digger?

I'd say that Digger is known for his twitter output than his output here.
 
Re: Re:

ice&fire said:
the sceptic said:
ice&fire said:
The clinic is just a resonance box for those who dwell inside it
this is not true. on twitter you get basically the same thing, on a much bigger scale.
When Brailsford and co. point their finger to what they call pseudo-scientists and irresponsible reporters they refer to high-profile people like Vayer, Tucker or Kimmage. AFAIK none of them posts here and I doubt they use this place as a source for what they say. I might be underrating the clinic; or you might be overrating it ;)
Tucker has posted in the power thread previously. I dont think since ~2012 timeframe but that is a long running thread.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
The Hitch said:
Dear Wiggo said:
More engagement on twitter, IMO.

Same people with the same message, different medium.
Don't fully agree. Twitter has many flaws. Biggest of which are
1)140 characters.
2)No moderation
3) popularity rankings - the more popular the more people read.
4) no exposure to counterarguments. Can just follow people you already agree with.
5) 140 characters. Not enough for even 1 proper sentnence.
No understanding your disagreement. I did not say twitter did not have flaws, I said it had more engagement, the same people with the same messages, and is a different medium.

Disagreeing because there is a 140 character limit is illogical at best. Same with the rest of your points. I am speaking purely subjectively, but my gut feel says Digger is getting significantly more engagement than here also.
Sorry, i shouldn't have suggested I was disagreeing with you, just made a general comment about why the clinic is better than twitter.
 
the Clinic has always been a place that carried a lot of info... it used to have more to offer in the pre-RD Reasoned Decision Armstrong days..
Many riders used to come on here..many other knowledgeable people posted tons of stuff that you couldn't find elsewhere. The clinic has been recognized for playing its part in the downfall of Wonderboy...it spread the word.
though it has morphed into a somewhat different entity a lot of original posters have honed their craft here and taken it to twitter and a larger broader audience.

:) :p :cool:
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
I think some of Those That Know Who They Are the Dawg complained about for inciting fans to poour Heineken at him may well be reading the clinic, and may well have been influenced by some of the discussion that happens here.
It's not necessary.
I've been riding in France all my life with different bikes and different outfits. I'm not even the competitive type, I am well overweight. Every now and then, I find a smart ass calling me a doper. Stupid people do not need some incentive. They're just very good at being stupid.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY