To support or to not support dopers?

[mewmewmew13]

If I may add to my rambling above, I'd also say that part of the reason for the double standards about Sky for many people is also due to their inviting comparisons to US Postal and then being upset when people continue to do so after it becomes public that that's not a good thing to be doing. People have finally seen the back of one bogeyman after 15 years, and feel that Sky are trying to sell the same narrative that they've already been kicking against for 15 years, and that narrative tasted like being repeatedly punched in the mouth before. There's definitely an element to it of the fans cranking up some vintage Who and point blank refusing to listen to the narrative Sky want to sell.

Thanks for the excellent posts L...I feel this way as well..very well said.

 

[blackcat]

Sella still gets patronized mocked and spat on. Millar gets told he should run for UCI President and gets movie contracts.

Not that Millar is the only one who benefits like that. But at the moment he's definately amongst the more visible ones.

Millar.... gesus and cancer jesus.


millar acts the repentant whatever is in vogue to act repentant for.

salient term, acts.

@libertine

 

[blackcat]

folks need to triangulate their rider de jour, and ask whether this rider, is so much more talented that a peloton that have comprehensive doping programs.

as Dave said, marginal gains aint a rounding error on a ferrari comprehensive program

my position, is less froome. more the peloton, that froome leaves grasping at his back tyre

 

[blackcat]

Nah. You believe they are both doping there's a difference good sir

ok, if you wish to get technical with the definitions

no value judgements

 

[armchairclimber]

But the thing was, I thought Valverde's suspension was a bunch of crap. So was Contador's. These backdated pretend-they-weren't-there-at-races-they-were-there-at suspensions are a nonsense. I thought it was fair that they were banned. I thought it was right that they were banned. But do it for two years and let them keep the results CAS said were fair results. But I still missed Valverde when he was gone, because I liked him. As I say, I wish I didn't. It would save me a lot of cognitive dissonance.

And this wouldn't be the first time, and I bet it won't be the last, that I will leave the inference that Sky being dull, dominant, arrogant and self-righteous (while being evasive and hypocritical) are a key factor in why I go after them more than, say, Катюша.


Does Valverde get more of a free pass? From me yes, but generally I see his successes creating as much if not more anger than most other convicted dopers bar the kind where they were repulsive characters long before they were banned and that garner more or less universal condemnation, like for example Danilo di Luca.


The problem is, at this point in time, the level of ridiculousness that he has been at for so long (far more dominant than many of the most doped names of recent times) now makes it that many simply are not able to believe that somebody could possibly believe in Froome without being a fan. When Mikel Astarloza said it would be way too stupid to use first-gen EPO in 2009 because it was so obviously detectable, I wanted to believe him, because I was a fan. Did I believe him? No. But I wanted to. I believe the majority of cynics are unable to even consider people believing Froome to be clean for anything other than partisan reasons, simply because there are so many leaps of faith that have to be made to proclaim him clean at this point in time that you almost have to want to make those leaps to be able to make them.


Probably because as he has been banned, nobody believes him when he talks about being clean and racing clean. A victory for Contador is impossible to spin as a victory for clean cycling, and so while Alberto may give us the schtick about his cleanliness, we get spared the sermons from all quarters about how cycling has changed. The sanctimonious garbage gets very tiring when you're seeing very little real progress. A previously banned rider can never be spun as a victory for clean cycling. Even Millar. Valverde got a lot more venom in 2009-10 than he does now. Why? Because everybody felt he was a cheat, but he had never been brought to justice.

In one sense, Dave Brailsford was right; once you cheat, you are forever a cheat. It doesn't mean that once you dope, you will never race clean again, and it doesn't mean that people cannot reform. But once you've been busted for doping, that will always be with you. Dopers who've never been brought to justice - especially those who wave in your face that they've never been brought to justice - will always attract the most venom. To the majority in the Clinic, Froome has passed the reasonable doubt stage, and they now see him as an almost certain doper who is winning, mocking the competition and waving his almost certain doping in our faces, but has never been brought to justice. And of course, this is an Anglophone, UK-based website where the Anglophone, UK-based team gets a disproportionate amount of coverage even before they start dominating the calendar, and familiarity breeds contempt. It's no surprise they get the lion's share of the vitriol, now that Armstrong has fallen.


Sure, there have also been some absolutely garbage excuses to level further accusations at Sky. And those of us that feel we have come to our conclusions based on relatively sound suspicions certainly don't need the tinfoil hat brigade jumping on the shape of lettering on a bike frame or the wording of an interview answer to a loaded question done when a rider's just crashed out of a race, any more than those who think Sky are clean need the nationalistic BS about superior British moral fibre or the likes of Joachim.

But as well as the number of supporters/detractors, do not underestimate the fact that they are dominating the calendar, getting the biggest share of coverage, and please don't underestimate the fact that they are doing so with riders that next to nobody could have reasonably expected to turn into even peripheral contenders for any major race. It makes it harder to accept, and it polarises people more than a rider like Nibali or Sagan.

And when debate gets polarised, views become progressively entrenched, people tend towards the extremes on both ends of the spectrum (and even self-proclaimed moderates - that's you and me both, Jimmy - are not as close to the middle as they may want to think), and reconciliation becomes harder.

As is the norm, excellent post.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Pretty cheap implication that. People think Froome is doping because they don't like him. Errr, no

Way to take a point out of context, simplify it and then mockingly throw it back at me. Next engage the point I was making or don't bother at all.

 

[JimmyFingers]

But the thing was, I thought Valverde's suspension was a bunch of crap. So was Contador's. These backdated pretend-they-weren't-there-at-races-they-were-there-at suspensions are a nonsense. I thought it was fair that they were banned. I thought it was right that they were banned. But do it for two years and let them keep the results CAS said were fair results. But I still missed Valverde when he was gone, because I liked him. As I say, I wish I didn't. It would save me a lot of cognitive dissonance.

And this wouldn't be the first time, and I bet it won't be the last, that I will leave the inference that Sky being dull, dominant, arrogant and self-righteous (while being evasive and hypocritical) are a key factor in why I go after them more than, say, Катюша.


Does Valverde get more of a free pass? From me yes, but generally I see his successes creating as much if not more anger than most other convicted dopers bar the kind where they were repulsive characters long before they were banned and that garner more or less universal condemnation, like for example Danilo di Luca.


The problem is, at this point in time, the level of ridiculousness that he has been at for so long (far more dominant than many of the most doped names of recent times) now makes it that many simply are not able to believe that somebody could possibly believe in Froome without being a fan. When Mikel Astarloza said it would be way too stupid to use first-gen EPO in 2009 because it was so obviously detectable, I wanted to believe him, because I was a fan. Did I believe him? No. But I wanted to. I believe the majority of cynics are unable to even consider people believing Froome to be clean for anything other than partisan reasons, simply because there are so many leaps of faith that have to be made to proclaim him clean at this point in time that you almost have to want to make those leaps to be able to make them.


Probably because as he has been banned, nobody believes him when he talks about being clean and racing clean. A victory for Contador is impossible to spin as a victory for clean cycling, and so while Alberto may give us the schtick about his cleanliness, we get spared the sermons from all quarters about how cycling has changed. The sanctimonious garbage gets very tiring when you're seeing very little real progress. A previously banned rider can never be spun as a victory for clean cycling. Even Millar. Valverde got a lot more venom in 2009-10 than he does now. Why? Because everybody felt he was a cheat, but he had never been brought to justice.

In one sense, Dave Brailsford was right; once you cheat, you are forever a cheat. It doesn't mean that once you dope, you will never race clean again, and it doesn't mean that people cannot reform. But once you've been busted for doping, that will always be with you. Dopers who've never been brought to justice - especially those who wave in your face that they've never been brought to justice - will always attract the most venom. To the majority in the Clinic, Froome has passed the reasonable doubt stage, and they now see him as an almost certain doper who is winning, mocking the competition and waving his almost certain doping in our faces, but has never been brought to justice. And of course, this is an Anglophone, UK-based website where the Anglophone, UK-based team gets a disproportionate amount of coverage even before they start dominating the calendar, and familiarity breeds contempt. It's no surprise they get the lion's share of the vitriol, now that Armstrong has fallen.


Sure, there have also been some absolutely garbage excuses to level further accusations at Sky. And those of us that feel we have come to our conclusions based on relatively sound suspicions certainly don't need the tinfoil hat brigade jumping on the shape of lettering on a bike frame or the wording of an interview answer to a loaded question done when a rider's just crashed out of a race, any more than those who think Sky are clean need the nationalistic BS about superior British moral fibre or the likes of Joachim.

But as well as the number of supporters/detractors, do not underestimate the fact that they are dominating the calendar, getting the biggest share of coverage, and please don't underestimate the fact that they are doing so with riders that next to nobody could have reasonably expected to turn into even peripheral contenders for any major race. It makes it harder to accept, and it polarises people more than a rider like Nibali or Sagan.

And when debate gets polarised, views become progressively entrenched, people tend towards the extremes on both ends of the spectrum (and even self-proclaimed moderates - that's you and me both, Jimmy - are not as close to the middle as they may want to think), and reconciliation becomes harder.

Thank you for the considered reply. I don't have time to fully digest it and reply, but will do when I get the chance.

 

[markjohnconley]

Mick Rogers,.... He's a doper,..

He's also f**king brilliant; not being caught with all the present day checks

 

[Walkman]

He's also f**king brilliant; not being caught with all the present day checks

Uhm, he has been caught.

 

[BigMac]

I think some are missing the point, tough. It's not about preferring one rider over the other even though knowing they are both cheats. Rather about being repulsive towards one, using derogatory language, and, above all, hurrying to call them out for their supposed cheating, saying it's unbelievable and that they should be popped, while not applying the same standards of judgment to the rider you like. You're allowed to like one more than the other, obviously, but that is different than preferring one doping more than the other, which is common here

Gooner's point is, the way I see it, that you may like, say, Contador but not Froome. Just don't go bonkers and hurling accusations around once the Kenya-born Brit flies away in the mountains if you can't or refuse to apply the same standards to Beefoman.

 

[the sceptic]

Horner is the best doper ever. Giving the middle finger to the new generation and everyone who want to call him a doper without evidence.

 

[No_Balls]

There is no positive spin that can be done with the above. If Froome said these "lies and fabrications", the same Contador fans who decry everything that Froome says and that have noproblem with these previous comments from Contador, would be on top of this like a ton of bricks with their huge outcry.

Problem is that religious Skybots are too obsessed with carefully selected riders, and that cant be a healthy-thing, to fail to see that there has been many various voices against Froome. All from people who has spoken out against the likes of Alberto in the past to those more sceptical because of Froomes/Sky relation to the governing bodies of cycling and their general approach to cycling as a result of that. Cant it really be a good thing when "critical journalists" like Walsh is now a belieber?

If people did a statement like that towards Froome it wouldnt be because he was a doper but people suspects he has the blessing to say these things. Ever thought on that?

I think there is a clear inconsistency on this forum by some regarding their differing stances on certain riders.

I think there is a clear disunderstanding of things regarding cycling that wont magically disappear overnight even if one or two of the riders got called out. It could be easy doing that but then again the same people turning a blind eye to doping in the past wouldnt have a show.

If you're a Contador fan who has no problem with him smashing it during his successes while doping, I don't think you're in a credible position to open your mouth calling out Froome.

Because some riders are more equal then others? Its not as if the skybots has understand (or are intrested) in the file against AC when you guys are overexaggerating the situation to the point of him being a drug overlord. You arent intrested in understanding the complexity of the problem in order to sell your man as a poster boy of clean cycling. This to the point in starting to believe in fairy tales and unicorns.

I think if you're going to call out guys like Froome, Wiggins, Porte, Talansky, Quintana etc, you should come from a position of strength yourself with who you support. Otherwise you're not credible and it's done entirely on a selective basis with an agenda attached to it.

Coming from a position of strenght is not a luxuary anyone following procycling the last 50+ years has which you would realised if you not started following in september 2011. So i dont understand how it can be a problem calling out these riders, regardless of your own cyclist of choice?

I also find it absurd anyone with the mindset "doping isn't the problem, it's the hypocrisy". It's like saying that's "it's not too serious that Froome is doping because at the end of the day he's not a hypocrite" and we would go easier on him as a result. I can't get my head around that thinking.

But the case with Froome is that he would BE a hypocrite as he himselves cant believe how he can´t be any cleaner and has targeted the next six Tour de France. Besides Garmin he is the cleanest of the clean accepted by a wide majority of cycling hot shots, those who blame Armstrong for everything and their chamois sniffing avantgarde. Doping is just part of the problem (as always with cycling) here.

 

[Gavandope]

I've been a hypocrite before hugely with Pantani and I also am rather with Contador. His style on the bike is one of the very best of his generation but that doesn't deter the fact I'm convinced he's doped up with the right amount/products to bypass the controls and win this Vuelta.

Froome is the opposite style on the bike - horrendous to admire with only his diesel engine to appreciate.

At the top end of this sport it's still all a shade of grey as far as I can see. I awarded Péraud my yellow for the TDF cos he was the highest placed rider I could believe..

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Excessive alcohol is bad for the body. But I like to, and sometimes go out of my way to drink too much. Pop-music is bad for the integrity of the industry, but I will sing along to catchy songs on the radio. Dopers continuing to dope without impunity is bad for the sport, but watching Horner and Nibali dog it out on the Angrilu (or any other stage of any other GT) was awesome to watch.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me human. Personally, I don't like the word hypocrite, because it doesn't have any meaning the way it is used most often. Why should making exceptions be a bad thing? Why should be blanket over unique situations with un-pragmatic principles?

I hate doping. Dopers have taken away from me personally, and have taken away from the value of the sport which I've made my life. But I also love competition, and aggression, and tenacity, and I admire those who can dig so deep, even when I know it is not anything innate but injected.

I don't know the answer. If I really wanted to to everything to fight others' doping, I would boycott dirty events on TV, boycott dirty athlete's sponsors, and let everyone know the what, where and why. But I'm not going to do that.

TL;DR: I'm going to watch and admire dopers because its exciting, even if it is a marginal endorsement of their doping. Not watching, on the other hand, would take away a large source of where I drive personal enjoyment. Balancing out the impact of endorsing doping by ignoring it, and fighting doping by doing (something) is a case by case basis.

 

[mrhender]

I think the demand to cyclists are on a scale not comparable or coherent to any other sport...

-Cycling is the sport where it is actually possible to get close to the contestants.

-Cycling is to some extend an extreme endurance sport which holds enourmous claims to it's participants.

-Cycling is often considered a gentlemen sport, any one who doesn't fit in that picture immediatly get's the public hammer.

-Cycling is governed by inconsistent authorities

-Cycling is policed by those promoting the sport

-Cycling is culturally affected by history

-Cycling is ethically measured on a remotely different scale, than any other sport is

-Cycling only get a few percentages rich enough to retire after career is over

-Cyclists undergo scrutiny retropsectively in a way in-comparitable to any other sport

I could go on like this for a while...

Point is..
Maybe you have to perform some sort of comparison to other sports, and maybe other aspects of life. Before you deem the support of dopers naivety and hypocrisy.. A huge amount of pressure and expectations are on these riders. It is perfetly fair to point out cheaters and hand out punishment. But as long as it is a cultural issue I will not demonize any rider, because of doping...

 

[del1962]

Problem is that religious Skybots are too obsessed with carefully selected riders, and that cant be a healthy-thing, to fail to see that there has been many various voices against Froome. All from people who has spoken out against the likes of Alberto in the past to those more sceptical because of Froomes/Sky relation to the governing bodies of cycling and their general approach to cycling as a result of that. Cant it really be a good thing when "critical journalists" like Walsh is now a belieber?

If people did a statement like that towards Froome it wouldnt be because he was a doper but people suspects he has the blessing to say these things. Ever thought on that?



I think there is a clear disunderstanding of things regarding cycling that wont magically disappear overnight even if one or two of the riders got called out. It could be easy doing that but then again the same people turning a blind eye to doping in the past wouldnt have a show.



Because some riders are more equal then others? Its not as if the skybots has understand (or are intrested) in the file against AC when you guys are overexaggerating the situation to the point of him being a drug overlord. You arent intrested in understanding the complexity of the problem in order to sell your man as a poster boy of clean cycling. This to the point in starting to believe in fairy tales and unicorns.



Coming from a position of strenght is not a luxuary anyone following procycling the last 50+ years has which you would realised if you not started following in september 2011. So i dont understand how it can be a problem calling out these riders, regardless of your own cyclist of choice?



But the case with Froome is that he would BE a hypocrite as he himselves cant believe how he can´t be any cleaner and has targeted the next six Tour de France. Besides Garmin he is the cleanest of the clean accepted by a wide majority of cycling hot shots, those who blame Armstrong for everything and their chamois sniffing avantgarde. Doping is just part of the problem (as always with cycling) here.

What a load of moralising self righteous piece of garbage

Typical baiting that the mods do nothing about like religious skybots etc,

what is the matter, did a rider you idolise turn out to be a cheat?

 

[No_Balls]

What a load of moralising self righteous piece of garbage

Typical baiting that the mods do nothing about like religious skybots etc,

what is the matter, did a rider you idolise turn out to be a cheat?

I've cheered on many cheaters/possible cheaters in my days yes. I find it very unlikely i wont in the future given the sports track record. Hope i am wrong of course.

But whats the matter? You seem very angry. Given your entrenched warfare in the defense of Froome it cant be doping that keeps you awake at night? It takes more to be a commisioner Morse in the name of anti-doping then blindly trust the latest Brailsford PR-statement. Surely, you wouldnt left any stone unturned?

 

[DirtyWorks]

The title of the thread is a pair of false choices.