The Sidebar Thread

[red_flanders]

I don't accept 'updating' - in other words reversing - the rule changes what it originally meant.

Yes, quite. It does seem clear what the new rule is. The new rule has been the operating model long before the rule was new/updated/changed.

 

[King Boonen]

My suggestion for a public publication of biomarker results would and will deter cyclists from doping because cyclists are afraid that any significant changes in baseline testing would make them the subject of an investigation. Publishing this data forces a cyclist to be transparent.

I left the links to the whole posts, you clearly state that the values would be used to determine future testing and as a baseline.


It is not a deterrent, because the data cannot be used. Take your own example of an increase from 40% HCT to 48% HCT. The UCI then schedule a test and the cyclist shows a 48% HCT. That's within the rules and completely fine, the thousands of dollars you have spent testing the cyclist have done exactly nothing.


As I keep saying, the data is completely meaningless if it has not come from a WADA lab, I am not saying it is incorrect, I am saying it is useless and meaningless for your intended purpose, a deterrent. Because it could never be used to prosecute.

A deterrent only works if there are consequences. There are none from the testing you propose.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

My suggestion for a public publication of biomarker results would and will deter cyclists from doping because cyclists are afraid that any significant changes in baseline testing would make them the subject of an investigation. Publishing this data forces a cyclist to be transparent.

I don't think you grasp the concept of deterrent very well. It is a common principle of behavioural psychology and it works.

I suggested somewhere in the clinic : imagine if the tests cost $1 to conduct. How many more could you do, and how much more effective would not only the ABP be, but also studies into physiology at the elite level, etc.

This sort of thing: http://www.theranos.com/ makes me think the potential for massive reductions in test costs, with the potential for massive increases in number of tests, coupled with the smaller amount of blood required (ie you could test riders every day in a GT) means something could be done.

Theranos is not the answer, but it certainly points the way forward, imo.

I like your thinking on this, RobbieCanuck, and the idea has merit, imo. In a sea of condemners and deniers, it's encouraging to see people thinking of how to improve the situation.

 

[blackcat]

First I heard it was on the Howard Stern show. The Benji Vortex. It is usually used as an insult

april macie? macey?

linguistics?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I left the links to the whole posts, you clearly state that the values would be used to determine future testing and as a baseline.


It is not a deterrent, because the data cannot be used. Take your own example of an increase from 40% HCT to 48% HCT. The UCI then schedule a test and the cyclist shows a 48% HCT. That's within the rules and completely fine, the thousands of dollars you have spent testing the cyclist have done exactly nothing.


As I keep saying, the data is completely meaningless if it has not come from a WADA lab, I am not saying it is incorrect, I am saying it is useless and meaningless for your intended purpose, a deterrent. Because it could never be used to prosecute.

A deterrent only works if there are consequences. There are none from the testing you propose.

Of course the data can be used and here is how. On day 1 cyclist A shows the results of a blood test as indicating a hematocrit of 40%. This data is publicly published by the team on say a special UCI website. On Day 15 cyclist's A's hematocrit shows 48%. This biomarker data is publicly published. Now the whole world sees this change.

The following are going to note the change,
1. The general public - cycling fans
2. The UCI
3. The cyclists national cycling organization
4. The cyclists national ADA

Now the change of and in itself does not prove doping. My suggestion to publish bio marker data was never intended to prove doping. However we all know something caused the 8% increase. That will catch the attention of the aforementioned people and organizations. There will be a lot of heat on the cyclist to explain why. Heat the cyclist does not want.

Sure he is legal but so what. It is the change of 8% that is important to note. This is not meaningless data. It is meaningful data. And the blood test on Day 1 and Day 15 do not cost thousands of dollars as you insist.

Now answer me this. What cyclist wants to attract this kind of attention and heat? None. Why does the cyclist attract heat. Because this data is in the public domain. Therefore this is a deterrent to the cyclist to dope. It is also a transparent system that keeps the cyclist in line.

In addition a properly done biomarker test could be used in a prosecution by USADA and CAS hearings. It does not have to be WADA protocol to be admissible evidence in an arbitration.

I don't know how I can lay it out for you any clearer.

 

[GJB123]

Of course the data can be used and here is how. On day 1 cyclist A shows the results of a blood test as indicating a hematocrit of 40%. This data is publicly published by the team on say a special UCI website. On Day 15 cyclist's A's hematocrit shows 48%. This biomarker data is publicly published. Now the whole world sees this change.

The following are going to note the change,
1. The general public - cycling fans
2. The UCI
3. The cyclists national cycling organization
4. The cyclists national ADA

Now the change of and in itself does not prove doping. My suggestion to publish bio marker data was never intended to prove doping. However we all know something caused the 8% increase. That will catch the attention of the aforementioned people and organizations. There will be a lot of heat on the cyclist to explain why. Heat the cyclist does not want.

Sure he is legal but so what. It is the change of 8% that is important to note. This is not meaningless data. It is meaningful data. And the blood test on Day 1 and Day 15 do not cost thousands of dollars as you insist.

Now answer me this. What cyclist wants to attract this kind of attention and heat? None. Why does the cyclist attract heat. Because this data is in the public domain. Therefore this is a deterrent to the cyclist to dope. It is also a transparent system that keeps the cyclist in line.

In addition a properly done biomarker test could be used in a prosecution by USADA and CAS hearings. It does not have to be WADA protocol to be admissible evidence in an arbitration.

I don't know how I can lay it out for you any clearer.

The point King Boonen is making, and I think it is valid, that you cannot conclude anything from the 8% increase because first and foremost we do not know if the test was done correctly, because it wasn't done according to WADA-protocol.

So what we end up with is a rider having to explain away value that we inherently cannot trust.

 

[King Boonen]

The point King Boonen is making, and I think it is valid, that you cannot conclude anything from the 8% increase because first and foremost we do not know if the test was done correctly, because it wasn't done according to WADA-protocol.

So what we end up with is a rider having to explain away value that we inherently cannot trust.

Pretty much, in fact they don't even have to explain it at all. They just issue a statement saying these tests have not been carried out in accredited laboratories with samples controlled by the prescribed protocols for anti-doping. While the results are interesting the tests done by the ADA show that their hematocrit is within the prescribed biological boundaries proving they are racing clean.

We're talking about people who willingly dope here, they are not going to care about speculation, and to be honest if you win a race these days people seem to think you're doping, so I cannot possibly see how something which has no consequences is a deterrent.

It could go further. If the UCI were found to be using unverified results as a means of targetting anti-doping they are opening themselves up to discrimination lawsuits and possibly ruining the work or the ADA's.


I would love to see a more comprehensive biological passport with much more regular testing, that is the way doping should move forward, along with taking the national federations and the UCI out of the decision making process. The problem is that takes a lot of money, money cycling does not have.

Talking about perceived advertising benefit as if it is real money is a complete red herring, this money doesn't exist and it likely will not alter anyones advertising budget.

 

[Afrank]

1) Just like the discussion regarding Thatcher after her death?

2) This is the clinic. Pretty much here is speculation about conspiracies.

3) Is that reason to ban a topic? Pretty much any topic can lead to bans, hardly the fault of the topic(s), but the posters, no? It's not like there isn't any problems or unnecessary conflicts atm...

It's just simple speculation that a soigneur (like other soigneurs in the past) had experimented with peds on himself, possibly being the cause of his death. I really can't see any problem with that, and I don't think it's a problem if some doesn't like the topic.

If the PDM affair in 1991 had led to the death of a rider, would that topic then also be banned?

1. Don't think I read said discussion, so can't really comment on that.
2. True, the clinic pretty much is all about speculation. But there is a difference between speculation and conspiracies. Conspiracies are very often not true at all and often don't have any hard evidence to back them up. Provide some hard evidence or proof of some kind and the idea that Txema's death had something to do with doping will have some merit to it.
3. But some topics are more likely to lead to bans and discourse between members then other topics. I think this could be a topic that would lead to that, as there are a number of posters that feel the discussion is disrespectful to Txema and a number that think there is value in it.

If there was some proof or evidence of some kind that indicate that Txema's death being caused by doping was accurate then I would be more inclined to agree with letting a discussion about it go on. but as of now, it seems to be pretty much a conspiracy theory. And unless there is something behind it to make it not a conspiracy theory, I consider it disrespectful and tasteless.

In other words, backed up with evidence/proof and the discussion has merit, otherwise it's making stuff up about a person now deceased.

 

[Netserk]

1. Don't think I read said discussion, so can't really comment on that.
2. True, the clinic pretty much is all about speculation. But there is a difference between speculation and conspiracies. Conspiracies are very often not true at all and often don't have any hard evidence to back them up. Provide some hard evidence or proof of some kind and the idea that Txema's death had something to do with doping will have some merit to it.
3. But some topics are more likely to lead to bans and discourse between members then other topics. I think this could be a topic that would lead to that, as there are a number of posters that feel the discussion is disrespectful to Txema and a number that think there is value in it.

If there was some proof or evidence of some kind that indicate that Txema's death being caused by doping was accurate then I would be more inclined to agree with letting a discussion about it go on. but as of now, it seems to be pretty much a conspiracy theory. And unless there is something behind it to make it not a conspiracy theory, I consider it disrespectful and tasteless.

In other words, backed up with evidence/proof and the discussion has merit, otherwise it's making stuff up about a person now deceased.

1:edit: I misread that bit of your post, nvm.

2:

spec·u·la·tion
noun \ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\

: ideas or guesses about something that is not known

: activity in which someone buys and sells things (such as stocks or pieces of property) in the hope of making a large profit but with the risk of a large loss

con·spir·a·cy
noun \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\

: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

It's speculation. You could argue it would be speculation about a conspiracy, if one speculated that the team management was part of it. Though much in the Sky thread is speculation about conspiracies. Other threads too, like Cookson perhaps being corrupt and giving a free-card to Sky. That, like much else speculation in the clinic, does not have hard evidence to back it up. All it has is precedence, (more or less) just like this speculation.

3: Again it's posters' behaviour that is moderated not content, so judge it by that. IF some people are able to behave themselves while speculating, why should the topic be banned just because others can't? I can live with other thinking it's disrespectful and tasteless. If some can't, they are free not to open the thread (If a specific thread was opened about the topic). No harm done.

People already speculate (or what you call make stuff up) about dead people. I think that's fine. It's not like we speculate whether or not he was a gigolo, giving head to DB and dying because of a STD (far-fetched). That would be truly disrespectful and tasteless. On the other hand a soigneur experimenting with peds have happened in the past. It's not that far-fetched, and I don't think it's either disrespectful or tasteless, just like I don't think it's disrespectful to speculate that riders dope.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Personally I find it repugnant that someone can die from something so unusual and people just wave their hands and say, "meh, perfectly normal". Nothing to see here. Move along. No, don't talk about it, it's tasteless.

Yes, he was young, and healthy. It's a tragedy.

Since I originally posted the conspiracy, I have learnt three things I did not know at the time. I learnt a 4th after posting it:

1. soigneurs inject themselves with their own concoctions.
See: Hendershot, Cycle of lies.

2. it's exceedingly rare
I asked a doctor how likely someone was to die from septicemia before I posted. His response:

a random person walking along and suddenly dying from a bacterial septicemia is exceedingly rare.

Research lead to the figure of 1 in 100,000 for deaths.

3. It's easy to treat
Here's an account from 2001 that I read where someone developed septicemia:

When the man laid down to rest, he reported feeling feverish, with a headache, weakness and chills, Dickler said.

The researchers paged a doctor, and the volunteer was wheeled to the hospital's emergency room.

The staff discovered he had low blood pressure and a "life-threatening" bacterial infection in his bloodstream, known as bateremia or septicemia, according to university officials.

He was in the hospital for five days receiving intravenous antibiotics, then released. But 11 days later, tests showed that the bacteria persisted in his blood. Starting May 26, he spent two more weeks in the hospital on intravenous antibiotics, according to a university report.

"If it's untreated, systemic infection with bacteremia can lead to shock and collapse of the vascular system," said Dickler. "But bacteremia is fairly easy to treat, and in this case [the patient] totally recovered."

If it's fairly easy to treat, how is it that Txema died?

And how the heck did he develop the condition in the first place? What steps are Team Sky taking to ensure it does not happen again, beyond hiring a doping doctor? What steps are they recommending to other teams in a display of solidarity for care for the people in their employ, to ensure it does not happen again?

*crickets*

4. Millar's doping doctor (Jesus Losa) was employed by Euskatel, as was Txema at that time. Millar was riding for Cofidis at the time.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Personally I find it repugnant that someone can die from something so unusual and people just wave their hands and say, "meh, perfectly normal". Nothing to see here. Move along. No, don't talk about it, it's tasteless.

Yes, he was young, and healthy. It's a tragedy.

Since I originally posted the conspiracy, I have learnt three things I did not know at the time. I learnt a 4th after posting it:

1. soigneurs inject themselves with their own concoctions.
See: Hendershot, Cycle of lies.

2. it's exceedingly rare
I asked a doctor how likely someone was to die from septicemia before I posted. His response:

Research lead to the figure of 1 in 100,000 for deaths.

3. It's easy to treat
Here's an account from 2001 that I read where someone developed septicemia:


If it's fairly easy to treat, how is it that Txema died?

And how the heck did he develop the condition in the first place? What steps are Team Sky taking to ensure it does not happen again, beyond hiring a doping doctor? What steps are they recommending to other teams in a display of solidarity for care for the people in their employ, to ensure it does not happen again?

*crickets*

4. Millar's doping doctor (Jesus Losa) was employed by Euskatel, as was Txema at that time. Millar was riding for Cofidis at the time.

Because clearly all cases of an illness are exactly the same.

People were talking about a possible reason for his death being he was testing stuff long before you posted so you are hardly the first with your 'conspiracy'.

Didn't Boonen nearly lose his arm because of a blood infection. Of course it could be doping related but it could be that he has a blood infection.

 

[sittingbison]

...Didn't Boonen nearly lose his arm because of a blood infection. Of course it could be doping related but it could be that he has a blood infection.

wasn't it his nose?

 

[Afrank]

1:edit: I misread that bit of your post, nvm.

2: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculationhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

It's speculation. You could argue it would be speculation about a conspiracy, if one speculated that the team management was part of it. Though much in the Sky thread is speculation about conspiracies. Other threads too, like Cookson perhaps being corrupt and giving a free-card to Sky. That, like much else speculation in the clinic, does not have hard evidence to back it up. All it has is precedence, (more or less) just like this speculation.

I suppose it would be more a conspiracy theory I would be talking about then, i.e.

an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation.

3: Again it's posters' behaviour that is moderated not content, so judge it by that. IF some people are able to behave themselves while speculating, why should the topic be banned just because others can't? I can live with other thinking it's disrespectful and tasteless. If some can't, they are free not to open the thread (If a specific thread was opened about the topic). No harm done.

People already speculate (or what you call make stuff up) about dead people. I think that's fine. It's not like we speculate whether or not he was a gigolo, giving head to DB and dying because of a STD (far-fetched). That would be truly disrespectful and tasteless. On the other hand a soigneur experimenting with peds have happened in the past. It's not that far-fetched, and I don't think it's either disrespectful or tasteless, just like I don't think it's disrespectful to speculate that riders dope.

If everyone partaking in the discussion is able to behave themselves and discuss the issue intelligently then certainly there is nothing wrong with the discussion. But if one poster comes in and doesn't behave themselves there's the chance they will draw even those that were following all the rules into a discussion that turns into bickering and goes off topic soon. And then even those that were originally behaving themselves may end up getting banned. Mods also can't be online 24/7, so if no mods are present to stop such a conversation before it begins it can spiral out of control quickly.

You make some good points. I do agree in general, that posters who do not like a conversation can always just stay out of the thread. And while I don't think discussing a conspiracy theory is necessarily wrong. I think the reason why people saw the discussion at issue as disrespectful was because it was over someone that died. And people see such a discussion of a conspiracy theory on a persons death as akin to making up lies or slander on them.

To be perfectly honest now however, you are convincing me that the discussion at issue wasn't quite as bad or as disrespectful as I originally thought it was.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Exactly the same mud gets slung around in the cycling threads, riders and teams are alleged to be using PEDs based on nothing more than good performances.
If its good enough and considered 'evidence' in the cycling threads then why not swimming?

Swimmers have been busted for PEDs in the past and will again in the future i'm sure, Phelps is the most successful swimmer, might a discussion on alleged PED use re. Phelps not be pertinent?

Well if that is what you want the Clinic to be i.e. "mud slung around" then what is the point of the Clinic. If "mud slung around" equals evidence then there is not a single thread with any credibility nor does it conform to the purported purpose of the Clinic as advertised by CyclingNews.

In the circumstances you describe the Clinic becomes a gossip rag no better than the British tabloids. Surely this was not the intent of the Clinic.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Considering actual doping experts have said doping is rife within sport (that more than half of Olympians dope) - http://www.dw.de/simon-all-sports-are-prone-to-doping/a-17391410 and considering the effect drugs have on athletes and considering that in the 1 sport that was actually thoroughly investigated for doping -1990's cycling, there was not a single.champion not heavily on drugs, it really is not a stretch to believe people like Phelps probably doped.

That's how science works. Some of you seem to think doping is an act that has absolutely 0 correlation with doping.

You want to talk about 0 evidence Robbie. There is absolutely 0 evidence that you are anything but out of your mind when you suggest that.

You are missing the point. In many cases the Clinic has degenerated into knee jerk responses whenever a top athlete is referenced to imply that athlete is doping. You are a prime example with Froome and Contador.

I give you the benefit of your "analysis" as to why they are doping but you really are a purveyor of speculation. Your thinking becomes concrete and closed to other possibilities.

The issue here, and you frequently duck the issue, is there any evidence period Phelps has doped to justify a thread in the Clinic that defames him with insinuations of doping. There is none, nada and 0.

If you cannot see that you are blind and seriously "out of your mind" (your words)

 

[RobbieCanuck]

If the clinic as a whole upsets you this much, I again make the suggestion, don't even go into it. When I first joined the forum I didn't even bother with the clinic (not because it upset me, I just wasn't that interested in the doping aspect at the time). It wasn't that hard to avoid.

Much of the clinic as a whole is a place for speculation, if one poster wants to open a thread to discuss the possibility that Phelps or any other athlete doped than they should be free too. If there is nothing there to prove said doping like you think then the thread will soon fall from the front page, no action by the mods will be required.

My personal opinion is not that he doped or that he is clean. He may be doped, he may be clean, I don't know. But I do not refuse to see the possibility that Phelps doped as not valid in anyway. My comment is not irresponsible, it is neutral. Now back to the threads topic...

If you don't know if Phelps is clean or not, and there is no evidence presented by Masking Agent he is, just speculative smears, what is the point of the thread? It is obvious to me, by your response, CN is not interested in genuine discussion about doping. It is sad to see you support a discussion forum that glorifies speculation.

Perhaps I should start a thread that Afrank is a drug addict! My personal opinion is not that he is or that he is clean. He may be a drug addict, he may be clean, I don't know. But I do not refuse to see the possibility Afrank does drugs as not valid in anyway. My comment is not irresponsible, it is neutral. Now back to the threads topic...

 

[HSNHSN]

If you don't know if Phelps is clean or not, and there is no evidence presented by Masking Agent he is, just speculative smears, what is the point of the thread? It is obvious to me, by your response, CN is not interested in genuine discussion about doping. It is sad to see you support a discussion forum that glorifies speculation.

Perhaps I should start a thread that Afrank is a drug addict! My personal opinion is not that he is or that he is clean. He may be a drug addict, he may be clean, I don't know. But I do not refuse to see the possibility Afrank does drugs as not valid in anyway. My comment is not irresponsible, it is neutral. Now back to the threads topic...

If you want to discuss when people should be allowed to open a thread to discuss whether someone is doping or not, please do this in its own thread (if there isn't one, start one). Please don't keep hijacking this thread to repeat the same things that aren't really related to M. Phelps over and over again. Reformulating an argument doesn't spontaneously transform it into an entirely new argument.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

If you want to discuss when people should be allowed to open a thread to discuss whether someone is doping or not, please do this in its own thread (if there isn't one, start one). Please don't keep hijacking this thread to repeat the same things that aren't really related to M. Phelps over and over again. Reformulating an argument doesn't spontaneously transform it into an entirely new argument.

Are you bonkers? This whole discussion arises out of Masking Agents smear that Phelps is doping. If that doesn't arise out of a thread about Michael Phelps what does?

You have not followed the logical sequence of the posts.

I am not hijacking the substance of the thread, I am saying close it down because the fundamental premise of the thread is gossip, innuendo and smear. But if you want to continue to mire yourself in mud, muck, gossip and innuendo about Michael Phelps go for it.

 

[Afrank]

If you don't know if Phelps is clean or not, and there is no evidence presented by Masking Agent he is, just speculative smears, what is the point of the thread? It is obvious to me, by your response, CN is not interested in genuine discussion about doping. It is sad to see you support a discussion forum that glorifies speculation.

Perhaps I should start a thread that Afrank is a drug addict! My personal opinion is not that he is or that he is clean. He may be a drug addict, he may be clean, I don't know. But I do not refuse to see the possibility Afrank does drugs as not valid in anyway. My comment is not irresponsible, it is neutral. Now back to the threads topic...

I can't speak for masking_agent, but based on his OP it can bee seen he believes Phelps is doping. So I assume he saw he was coming out of retirement so created a thread to discuss the possibility of Phelps doping currently or in the past. The premise of the thread is not to gossip and smear Phelps, it's do discuss the possibility that he might have doped. Same premise for any other thread in the clinic on an athlete. To discuss if they dope or not.

Is it speculation, sure. But speculation makes up 90% of the clinic and much of the rest of the forum. We even have a Speculation and confirmation thread about rider schedules and parcours. Going by your logic (which seems to be that speculation shouldn't be aloud on the forum), the entire forum should be shut down. You've been here since 2010, you should know by now most of the clinic is speculation on riders. Most of the talk about Froome, Sky, Contador, OPQS, and countless other athletes and teams is speculation . If we as mods set out to only keep the clinic as a place to talk about verifiable and fact based doping, there would hardly be any discussion.

IMO, there really isn't anything inherently wrong with speculation. And just because you disagree that an athlete that is the subject of thread in the clinic is doping, is not grounds for all discussion in that thread to be stopped. You think Phelps is clean, fine, argue your point with those that think he is not. But to say that any discussion of the possibility should be shut down, is IMHO ridiculous.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I can't speak for masking_agent, but based on his OP it can bee seen he believes Phelps is doping. So I assume he saw he was coming out of retirement so created a thread to discuss the possibility of Phelps doping currently or in the past. The premise of the thread is not to gossip and smear Phelps, it's do discuss the possibility that he might have doped. Same premise for any other thread in the clinic on an athlete. To discuss if they dope or not.

Is it speculation, sure. But speculation makes up 90% of the clinic and much of the rest of the forum. We even have a Speculation and confirmation thread about rider schedules and parcours. Going by your logic (which seems to be that speculation shouldn't be aloud on the forum), the entire forum should be shut down. You've been here since 2010, you should know by now most of the clinic is speculation on riders. Most of the talk about Froome, Sky, Contador, OPQS, and countless other athletes and teams is speculation . If we as mods set out to only keep the clinic as a place to talk about verifiable and fact based doping, there would hardly be any discussion.

IMO, there really isn't anything inherently wrong with speculation. And just because you disagree that an athlete that is the subject of thread in the clinic is doping, is not grounds for all discussion in that thread to be stopped. You think Phelps is clean, fine, argue your point with those that think he is not. But to say that any discussion of the possibility should be shut down, is IMHO ridiculous.

1. First of all I notice you deleted my last post rather than put it in the Sidebar Thread. This is inexcusable censorship by Cycling News

2. You state, "I can't speak for masking_agent, but based on his OP it can bee seen he believes Phelps is doping."

Masking_Agent does more than believe Phelps is doping. He defames Phelps and his doctor with the following comments (which I previously drew to your attention)

"Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ? "

"Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ?"

It is pretty obvious you do not understand the law of defamation. And by permitting this defamation and by your encouraging the continuation of the thread as you did in your posts #21, #32 and #47 you and Cycling News are parties to the defamation. So when you malign my intelligence, your dumb posts looks pretty stupid.

Don't say I didn't warn you to shut the thread down in my post #12, but stubbornness, stupidity or hubris prompted you to encourage the continuation of the thread in the pathetic effort to elevate defamatory gossip to some sort of unwarranted role. Your personal posts #21, #32, #47 and of course this current post do exactly that.

You also ignored the advice of alanshearer's post #41

3. After your posts #21 and #32 other posters jumped on the band wagon and defamed Phelps. For example see Netserk's post #44 where he alleges Phelps used HGH. This post is a direct result of your recklessness in not shutting the thread down and encouraging its continuance.

4. You state, "The premise of the thread is not to gossip and smear Phelps, it's do discuss the possibility that he might have doped."

This is sheer nonsense. When Masking_Agent says and I repeat,

Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ?

Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ?

And Netserk says, "Verdict: HGH abuser! "

For you to suggest these are not smears is ridiculous. They are egregious smears, accusations and defamation.

5. You state, "Same premise for any other thread in the clinic on an athlete. To discuss if they dope or not."

That is not what Cycling News claims in the Forum as I previously pointed out to you in Post #24. You surely jest when you say that is the purpose of the Forum.

6. You state, "Is it speculation, sure. But speculation makes up 90% of the clinic and much of the rest of the forum. We even have a Speculation and confirmation thread about rider schedules and parcours. Going by your logic (which seems to be that speculation shouldn't be aloud on the forum), the entire forum should be shut down."

Once again that is not how Cycling News advertises the Clinic. Cycling News says

The Clinic
The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

No where does Cycling News say it is open season to defame anyone with gossip and innuendo. Masking_Agent is not discussing anything, he is making unfounded assertions and accusations that Phelps dopes through his doctor. You are really ingenuous if you think that.

7. You state, " Most of the talk about Froome, Sky, Contador, OPQS, and countless other athletes and teams is speculation ."

This is absurd. Contador has had a positive finding and sanction from CAS in 2012. The circumstances surrounding Froome and Sky's ascension to the heights of cycling is awash with circumstantial evidence i.e. factors that give rise to a reasonable opinion that Froome is doping and Sky knows it.

There is nothing of this kind of evidence or fact in the case of Phelps. You do not seem to understand the difference or the distinction about what threads are legit and which are not.

8. You say, "IMO, there really isn't anything inherently wrong with speculation."

What is inherently wrong about this kind of speculation is it promotes lies, falsehoods, smears and defamation. Is that enough for you? It is intellectually dishonest.

9. I hope Phelps sues yours and Cycling News a$$! You are really one naïve gossip monger and Cycling News is really one sorry excuse for an organization to allow and promote this kind of reckless defamation that exorcises the otherwise clean reputation of an amazing athlete.

 

[MarkvW]

1. First of all I notice you deleted my last post rather than put it in the Sidebar Thread. This is inexcusable censorship by Cycling News

2. You state, "I can't speak for masking_agent, but based on his OP it can bee seen he believes Phelps is doping."

Masking_Agent does more than believe Phelps is doping. He defames Phelps and his doctor with the following comments (which I previously drew to your attention)

"Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ? "

"Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ?"

It is pretty obvious you do not understand the law of defamation. And by permitting this defamation and by your encouraging the continuation of the thread as you did in your posts #21, #32 and #47 you and Cycling News are parties to the defamation. So when you malign my intelligence, your dumb posts looks pretty stupid.

Don't say I didn't warn you to shut the thread down in my post #12, but stubbornness, stupidity or hubris prompted you to encourage the continuation of the thread in the pathetic effort to elevate defamatory gossip to some sort of unwarranted role. Your personal posts #21, #32, #47 and of course this current post do exactly that.

You also ignored the advice of alanshearer's post #41

3. After your posts #21 and #32 other posters jumped on the band wagon and defamed Phelps. For example see Netserk's post #44 where he alleges Phelps used HGH. This post is a direct result of your recklessness in not shutting the thread down and encouraging its continuance.

4. You state, "The premise of the thread is not to gossip and smear Phelps, it's do discuss the possibility that he might have doped."

This is sheer nonsense. When Masking_Agent says and I repeat,

Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ?

Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ?

And Netserk says, "Verdict: HGH abuser! "

For you to suggest these are not smears is ridiculous. They are egregious smears, accusations and defamation.

5. You state, "Same premise for any other thread in the clinic on an athlete. To discuss if they dope or not."

That is not what Cycling News claims in the Forum as I previously pointed out to you in Post #24. You surely jest when you say that is the purpose of the Forum.

6. You state, "Is it speculation, sure. But speculation makes up 90% of the clinic and much of the rest of the forum. We even have a Speculation and confirmation thread about rider schedules and parcours. Going by your logic (which seems to be that speculation shouldn't be aloud on the forum), the entire forum should be shut down."

Once again that is not how Cycling News advertises the Clinic. Cycling News says

The Clinic
The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

No where does Cycling News say it is open season to defame anyone with gossip and innuendo. Masking_Agent is not discussing anything, he is making unfounded assertions and accusations that Phelps dopes through his doctor. You are really ingenuous if you think that.

7. You state, " Most of the talk about Froome, Sky, Contador, OPQS, and countless other athletes and teams is speculation ."

This is absurd. Contador has had a positive finding and sanction from CAS in 2012. The circumstances surrounding Froome and Sky's ascension to the heights of cycling is awash with circumstantial evidence i.e. factors that give rise to a reasonable opinion that Froome is doping and Sky knows it.

There is nothing of this kind of evidence or fact in the case of Phelps. You do not seem to understand the difference or the distinction about what threads are legit and which are not.

8. You say, "IMO, there really isn't anything inherently wrong with speculation."

What is inherently wrong about this kind of speculation is it promotes lies, falsehoods, smears and defamation. Is that enough for you? It is intellectually dishonest.

9. I hope Phelps sues yours and Cycling News a$$! You are really one naïve gossip monger and Cycling News is really one sorry excuse for an organization to allow and promote this kind of reckless defamation that exorcises the otherwise clean reputation of an amazing athlete.

You do get the irony in your post, don't you? You're arguing for censorship of what you call "reckless defamation," while at the same time you're complaining about the censorship of your post.

I'd rather have an open forum. I know you care a lot about your free and uncensored speech. If half-witted idiots want to engage in unsubstantiated speculation, then why not just let them engage in their free speech--recognizing that it is stupid, defamatory, and unreasonable and knowing that they may have to defend it at some future point. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

 

[Afrank]

1. First of all I notice you deleted my last post rather than put it in the Sidebar Thread. This is inexcusable censorship by Cycling News

I deleted that post because it was off topic and ignored my warning in the thread to stay on topic. Why did you feel the need to post that in that thread even after my warning to stay on topic? And it's not like that post added anything to any discussion taking place.

2. You state, "I can't speak for masking_agent, but based on his OP it can bee seen he believes Phelps is doping."

Masking_Agent does more than believe Phelps is doping. He defames Phelps and his doctor with the following comments (which I previously drew to your attention)

"Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ? "

"Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ?"

It is pretty obvious you do not understand the law of defamation. And by permitting this defamation and by your encouraging the continuation of the thread as you did in your posts #21, #32 and #47 you and Cycling News are parties to the defamation. So when you malign my intelligence, your dumb posts looks pretty stupid.

I don't consider his OP defamatory to Phelps. It makes the assumption that Phelps is and has been doping in his career. If making the assumption an athlete is doping is defaming them, then shut the entire clinic down now. As you can probably guess, we're not going to be doing that any time soon. I get the feeling the only reason your calling this out as defaming Phelps is because he's a favorite athlete of yours and you don't like it that some think he's dopes.

Don't say I didn't warn you to shut the thread down in my post #12, but stubbornness, stupidity or hubris prompted you to encourage the continuation of the thread in the pathetic effort to elevate defamatory gossip to some sort of unwarranted role. Your personal posts #21, #32, #47 and of course this current post do exactly that.

You also ignored the advice of alanshearer's post #41

I encourage discussion of the subject. I say again (for what, like the 3rd time?) just because you don't agree with someone or with their opinion, is not grounds for no discussion on that topic to be aloud. This is a free forum, meaning people are free to have whatever opinion they feel like. masking_agent is as free to believe and post Phelps doped as you are free to argue he's clean.

3. After your posts #21 and #32 other posters jumped on the band wagon and defamed Phelps. For example see Netserk's post #44 where he alleges Phelps used HGH. This post is a direct result of your recklessness in not shutting the thread down and encouraging its continuance.

I'm pretty sure Netserks post was said more in a joking manner, most posts about facial features and HGH are. Again, I encourage free speech and freedom of opinions in the clinic.

4. You state, "The premise of the thread is not to gossip and smear Phelps, it's do discuss the possibility that he might have doped."

This is sheer nonsense. When Masking_Agent says and I repeat,

Did he and his doctors find the right PED and masking agent to allow for this ?

Do you think he already tested this new PED to see if it allows him to compete at a high level again ?

And Netserk says, "Verdict: HGH abuser! "

For you to suggest these are not smears is ridiculous. They are egregious smears, accusations and defamation.

See what I wrote above, already pretty much answered this.

5. You state, "Same premise for any other thread in the clinic on an athlete. To discuss if they dope or not."

That is not what Cycling News claims in the Forum as I previously pointed out to you in Post #24. You surely jest when you say that is the purpose of the Forum.

The clinic's a place to discuss doping plain and simple. It may take the path of a thread on a positive, or on a suspicious looking performance, or just a thread discussing the possibility that an athlete is doping. It's all discussion of doping or possible doping.

6. You state, "Is it speculation, sure. But speculation makes up 90% of the clinic and much of the rest of the forum. We even have a Speculation and confirmation thread about rider schedules and parcours. Going by your logic (which seems to be that speculation shouldn't be aloud on the forum), the entire forum should be shut down."

Once again that is not how Cycling News advertises the Clinic. Cycling News says

The Clinic
The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

No where does Cycling News say it is open season to defame anyone with gossip and innuendo. Masking_Agent is not discussing anything, he is making unfounded assertions and accusations that Phelps dopes through his doctor. You are really ingenuous if you think that.

Again, pretty much see what I've already written, your repeating points. masking_agent makes the assumption Phelps dopes, you don't agree, argue it intelligently and calmly. It's called having a discussion.

7. You state, " Most of the talk about Froome, Sky, Contador, OPQS, and countless other athletes and teams is speculation ."

This is absurd. Contador has had a positive finding and sanction from CAS in 2012. The circumstances surrounding Froome and Sky's ascension to the heights of cycling is awash with circumstantial evidence i.e. factors that give rise to a reasonable opinion that Froome is doping and Sky knows it.

There is nothing of this kind of evidence or fact in the case of Phelps. You do not seem to understand the difference or the distinction about what threads are legit and which are not.

I said "most of." Is there any basis of evidence when Contador or Froome pull off a strong performance in a race and people use that as justification for doping? Like I've said multiple times, argue his cleanliness with those that think otherwise. Use the no evidence as reasons for him being clean.

8. You say, "IMO, there really isn't anything inherently wrong with speculation."

What is inherently wrong about this kind of speculation is it promotes lies, falsehoods, smears and defamation. Is that enough for you? It is intellectually dishonest.

So argue intelligently and calmly that there is no reason to speculate that Phelps dopes. It's not promoting lies, falsehoods and smears and defamation to have a discussion over the possibility that an athlete dopes.

9. I hope Phelps sues yours and Cycling News a$$! You are really one naïve gossip monger and Cycling News is really one sorry excuse for an organization to allow and promote this kind of reckless defamation that exorcises the otherwise clean reputation of an amazing athlete.

And looks like this last response is going to have to be a warning. Calm it down. Your letting your emotions get the best of you and you've been letting this happen the entire conversation. I'm more then willing to discuss the role of the clinic and speculation in it among other things in a calm and intelligent manner. But your letting your emotions drive you in this conversation. I believe by now I've given an answer multiple times to everything you object too. If you want to continue to have this conversation, I implore you to take a much calmer and more open-minded approach to it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I deleted that post because it was off topic and ignored my warning in the thread to stay on topic. Why did you feel the need to post that in that thread even after my warning to stay on topic? And it's not like that post added anything to any discussion taking place.

This is nonsense. You could have put the comment in Sidebar. You just don't like posters criticizing you.

I don't consider his OP defamatory to Phelps. It makes the assumption that Phelps is and has been doping in his career. If making the assumption an athlete is doping is defaming them, then shut the entire clinic down now. .

As I indicated you don't understand two things. Firstly your suggestion Masking_Agents comments are opinion. When a person has an opinion they typically say, "I think Phelps is doping because..." and that person gives their reasons logical of not. THEN, a discussion can ensue as to the reliability of the opinion and counter-arguments can be advanced.

Masking_Agent does not do this. He simply accuses Phelps and his doctor of administering PEDs. You clearly don't understand the difference and you do so at your peril.

Secondly, you may not consider the comments as defamatory but I am telling you as a former 35 year trial lawyer a court would.

I encourage discussion of the subject. I say again (for what, like the 3rd time?) just because you don't agree with someone or with their opinion, is not grounds for no discussion on that topic to be aloud. This is a free forum, meaning people are free to have whatever opinion they feel like. masking_agent is as free to believe and post Phelps doped as you are free to argue he's clean.

Once again you are missing the point. Masking_Agents comments are not opinion. They are accusations and smears. How in the world you cannot see that boggles the mind. Why would I go on a thread to argue Phelps is clean when there is absolutely no evidence period to suggest he is dirty. Your logic is perverse.


I'm pretty sure Netserks post was said more in a joking manner, most posts about facial features and HGH are. Again, I encourage free speech and freedom of opinions in the clinic.

What? You are now a mind reader. You can read Netserk's mind. Defamation in law relies in part on libel i.e. the written word. What would any reasonable person reading Netserk's comment think. They would assume Phelps is using HGH.

See what I wrote above, already pretty much answered this.

The clinic's a place to discuss doping plain and simple. It may take the path of a thread on a positive, or on a suspicious looking performance, or just a thread discussing the possibility that an athlete is doping. It's all discussion of doping or possible doping.

Just like me posting the possibility you are a drug addict without a scintilla of evidence?

Again, pretty much see what I've already written, your repeating points. masking_agent makes the assumption Phelps dopes, you don't agree, argue it intelligently and calmly. It's called having a discussion.



I said "most of." Is there any basis of evidence when Contador or Froome pull off a strong performance in a race and people use that as justification for doping? Like I've said multiple times, argue his cleanliness with those that think otherwise. Use the no evidence as reasons for him being clean.



So argue intelligently and calmly that there is no reason to speculate that Phelps dopes. It's not promoting lies, falsehoods and smears and defamation to have a discussion over the possibility that an athlete dopes.

The problem is you are not arguing intelligently. You are in lala land . You have a closed mind to gossip and innuendo being actionable defamation. One of these days it is going to jump up at you and bite you in the a$$ and seize your house and garnish your wages.

And looks like this last response is going to have to be a warning. Calm it down. Your letting your emotions get the best of you and you've been letting this happen the entire conversation. I'm more then willing to discuss the role of the clinic and speculation in it among other things in a calm and intelligent manner. But your letting your emotions drive you in this conversation. I believe by now I've given an answer multiple times to everything you object too. If you want to continue to have this conversation, I implore you to take a much calmer and more open-minded approach to it.

No what am telling you is that much of the crap (the possibilities, the accusations without evidence, the baseless accusations etc.) in the Clinic are defamatory. You seem to think this crap is above scrutiny or that some of us are just stupid not to buy into your schtick. What needs to be calmed down is the Clinic and not me.

Let me give you an example from another thread "What are those mysterious pills found on the roadside of Paris-Roubaix?

MewMewMew13 posts

Do not see why it would have had to come from a rider...could've dropped from a car...spectator..could've been there for a year..

and the label "TEST PRODUCT"
gheez...might have well said "ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE" :roll eyes:


as usual what could have been an interesting discussion gets turned into a playpen throwing brawl


Jspear posts

Cyclingweekly needed another story and CN forums needed another topic to discuss


That should tell you what is standard fare for CN. By allowing a thread that has a defamatory comment without a reasonable basis for saying so to continue is just plain dumb. And when someone draws the obvious to your attention as my post did and you ignore it is just plain dumber.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You do get the irony in your post, don't you? You're arguing for censorship of what you call "reckless defamation," while at the same time you're complaining about the censorship of your post.

I'd rather have an open forum. I know you care a lot about your free and uncensored speech. If half-witted idiots want to engage in unsubstantiated speculation, then why not just let them engage in their free speech--recognizing that it is stupid, defamatory, and unreasonable and knowing that they may have to defend it at some future point. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

The difference is my comment that was censored was not defamatory, so there is no case for irony. It was critical of CN and Afrank and they don't like to see criticism in ink. Free and uncensored speech comes with it a responsibility not to be intellectually dishonest. If for example you ran through the theatre yelling "Fire" when there was none, society would be justified in sanctioning your "free speech"

I understand that a lot of the opinions in CN are speculation etc., but usually those opinions have some basis for the opinion e.g. "Froome is doping." Given his sudden rise to GT fame, there exists a reasonable basis for the many opinions that he is in spite of the speculation.

The thread we are talking about does not contain opinion, just defamatory accusations of doping without any rationale as to why that is. That is not opinion. It is just smear, as any second rate tabloid would indulge in. As a result the premise for the thread is a non-starter. It is a non-thread. CN administrators cannot seem to grasp that concept.

It is like me starting a thread that says "MarkW is back racing. Will he and his doctor be using the same PEDs as before" when there is no evidence, no basis or any reasonable basis for thinking MarkW used PEDs in the past and that he will be using them in the present. If that defamation injured your reputation it is actionable.

If the thread said something to the effect,

"I see Phelps is back swimming. Will he be doping because .... " then okay. But in Masking_Agents thread there is no because, just blanket smear.

For example the Contador thread "Will Contador be Juiced Up Again on His Return" is legitimate because Contador has been sanctioned and there were a lot of unanswered questions in the Contador case about possible transfusions due to plasticizers being found etc. That gives the thread legitimacy in spite of the speculation contained in it.

But when a thread just starts off with a completely unfounded accusation not just against the athlete but his physician without there being any reasonable basis for saying so, the thread is a non starter. As I stated in the thread it is a stupid thread and should be shut down.

But if CN want to engage in that kind of tabloid trash so be it. it only damages the credibility of CN, not that this would take much to do given the attitude of Administrators like Afrank.

 

[MarkvW]

The difference is my comment that was censored was not defamatory, so there is no case for irony. It was critical of CN and Afrank and they don't like to see criticism in ink. Free and uncensored speech comes with it a responsibility not to be intellectually dishonest. If for example you ran through the theatre yelling "Fire" when there was none, society would be justified in sanctioning your "free speech"

I understand that a lot of the opinions in CN are speculation etc., but usually those opinions have some basis for the opinion e.g. "Froome is doping." Given his sudden rise to GT fame, there exists a reasonable basis for the many opinions that he is in spite of the speculation.

The thread we are talking about does not contain opinion, just defamatory accusations of doping without any rationale as to why that is. That is not opinion. It is just smear, as any second rate tabloid would indulge in. As a result the premise for the thread is a non-starter. It is a non-thread. CN administrators cannot seem to grasp that concept.

It is like me starting a thread that says "MarkW is back racing. Will he and his doctor be using the same PEDs as before" when there is no evidence, no basis or any reasonable basis for thinking MarkW used PEDs in the past and that he will be using them in the present. If that defamation injured your reputation it is actionable.

If the thread said something to the effect,

"I see Phelps is back swimming. Will he be doping because .... " then okay. But in Masking_Agents thread there is no because, just blanket smear.

For example the Contador thread "Will Contador be Juiced Up Again on His Return" is legitimate because Contador has been sanctioned and there were a lot of unanswered questions in the Contador case about possible transfusions due to plasticizers being found etc. That gives the thread legitimacy in spite of the speculation contained in it.

But when a thread just starts off with a completely unfounded accusation not just against the athlete but his physician without there being any reasonable basis for saying so, the thread is a non starter. As I stated in the thread it is a stupid thread and should be shut down.

But if CN want to engage in that kind of tabloid trash so be it. it only damages the credibility of CN, not that this would take much to do given the attitude of Administrators like Afrank.

Okay, Don Quixote . . ..