Todays Richard Award Goes To

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
There is something in that interview that is very relevant and something that I have long felt about this place.

Chase that dream. Don't compromise yourself. It's not true you can't win it clean, and as long as you believe that you can. The second you buy into believing the winners are all on drugs then that's the moment you either quit the sport, or you kill your chances of winning. Mindset is what caused the doping problem and it's mindset that will fix it.


Mindset and psychology are factors that get completely ignored in the quest for more doping stories in the Clinic. The denziens of the clinic might see themselves as anti-doping but they are actually promoting doping. Without the doping stories and endless speculation, they would have nothing.

Read the Clinic for any the period of time and the overwhelming sentiment is you have to dope, you have to dope, you have to dope. If that is what is constantly reinforced to the minds of young athletes coming through then guess what? Those young athletes will either quit or dope, it is negative reinforcement over and over and exactly what has got the sport in the mess in the first place. You have to dope, everyone is doping.

Most of the regulars here are only interested in doping stories and trying to show people are doping. I have always been more interested in trying to ascertain what might be possible for a clean athlete within the framework that doping is still happening. There is a very clear distinction.

People might believe that JV is talking BS with his sport getting cleaner lines but to me that is a far better message to be sending to young athletes than the everyone dopes/nothing has changed sentiment that prevades here. Even if the JV message is BS, at least it will encourage athletes to try and keep it clean as long as they can.

People will claim that it is promoting a false sense of realism but better to promote the idea of doing it with integrity than encouraging doping from the very start as would be the impression garnered by any young athlete reading here.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
pmcg76 said:
There is something in that interview that is very relevant and something that I have long felt about this place.

Chase that dream. Don't compromise yourself. It's not true you can't win it clean, and as long as you believe that you can. The second you buy into believing the winners are all on drugs then that's the moment you either quit the sport, or you kill your chances of winning. Mindset is what caused the doping problem and it's mindset that will fix it.


Mindset and psychology are factors that get completely ignored in the quest for more doping stories in the Clinic. The denziens of the clinic might see themselves as anti-doping but they are actually promoting doping. Without the doping stories and endless speculation, they would have nothing.

Read the Clinic for any the period of time and the overwhelming sentiment is you have to dope, you have to dope, you have to dope. If that is what is constantly reinforced to the minds of young athletes coming through then guess what? Those young athletes will either quit or dope, it is negative reinforcement over and over and exactly what has got the sport in the mess in the first place. You have to dope, everyone is doping.

Most of the regulars here are only interested in doping stories and trying to show people are doping. I have always been more interested in trying to ascertain what might be possible for a clean athlete within the framework that doping is still happening. There is a very clear distinction.

People might believe that JV is talking BS with his sport getting cleaner lines but to me that is a far better message to be sending to young athletes than the everyone dopes/nothing has changed sentiment that prevades here. Even if the JV message is BS, at least it will encourage athletes to try and keep it clean as long as they can.

People will claim that it is promoting a false sense of realism but better to promote the idea of doing it with integrity than encouraging doping from the very start as would be the impression garnered by any young athlete reading here.
This is the Clinic. The doping talk is supposed to be here, to keep the other subforums like you want them.
 
pmcg76 said:
. The denziens of the clinic might see themselves as anti-doping but they are actually promoting doping. Without the doping stories and endless speculation, they would have nothing.


Read the Clinic for any the period of time and the overwhelming sentiment is you have to dope, you have to dope, you have to dope.
I completely disagree. The objective is to bring some transparency and integrity to the sport and that will improve the safety of athletes. There are quite a few threads like this one:http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=25648
 
DirtyWorks said:
I completely disagree. The objective is to bring some transparency and integrity to the sport and that will improve the safety of athletes. There are quite a few threads like this one:http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=25648
Of course you can't see it. You are a regular here. Ask a lot of people why they don't post here and it will not be becasue they don't want to discuss doping, but because of the jaundiced view of so many here who can only see one thing.

I have no problem with discussing doping at all in a reasonable manner. It is the twisting of everything to prove doping, the invention of pure lies for the same purpose, the dismissing of anything that might even suggest the opposite etc, etc. Why is there a need to behave in such a way? Lets be clear, the people who behave in this way are some of the loudest shouters which tends to drown out the more balanced posters.

There will always be various stances as there is never a singular clinic mentality but if the dominant players are quite similar, they will be the ones who set the tone which is what comes across when you don't spend as much time here.

As I said, if those people have the view that everyone is doping and that you have to dope, that is an attitude that actively promotes doping because there is no alternative.

And that thread is actually an example of what I am talking about, I would say 99.9% of posters have no clue who Matt Cooke is or his background or if what he is saying is even true but it was jumped on by all the usual suspects.

As I posted in that thread, I was informed previously that Cooke was one of those doping in the US in his quest to get to Europe. I heard that long before that interview cropped up. Unfortunately I am unable to do a follow up with the source so I know no more than that.
 
How can the clinic promote doping when its only those dirty foreigners that dope and they can't speak English so can't read the clinic;)

Joking aside, I would observe that in the 1990's the clinic wasn't around, the internet was barely around, but pretty much every single winner of pretty much every single race was doping and so were the top 10s of every single gt.

Those riders certainly weren't getting the idea that they had to dope to win from here.

And in any case the cycling media is a million times more powerful and well read than the clinic and their message is that doping is gone and doesn't really help.

Guys like Robbie Mcewan and David Millar have both said in recent years that its actually impossible to be any good with doping.

So if young cyclists are reacting to what they read, they will all believe that taking peds is the worst thing they can do for their own future.

In amidst all that, if riders are actually concluding that the sport is rife with doping and they have to do so to have a chance to win gts, its probably because the argument has significant merit.
 
You see Hitch, you cannot post without of course exaggerating things for effect. Nobody I have ever known of in the media has said doping has gone, night have said things have improved but not gone. Care to name a few who said it was gone? I know your favourite journalist Walsh has never said that. Likewise maybe you could provide the links to Millar and McEwen saying it was impossible to be good with doping?

If you were a young athlete heading for top ranks and you read the clinic, having to dope is the impression that becomes clear. That might not be what encourages them, but if that particular attitude is still the prevailing attitude within the peloton, then yes that attitude promotes doping. It might not be the clinic but it is that attitude.



The Hitch said:
How can the clinic promote doping when its only those dirty foreigners that dope and they can't speak English so can't read the clinic;)



In amidst all that, if riders are actually concluding that the sport is rife with doping and they have to do so to have a chance to win gts, its probably because the argument has significant merit.
 
pmcg76 said:
As I posted in that thread, I was informed previously that Cooke was one of those doping in the US in his quest to get to Europe. I heard that long before that interview cropped up. Unfortunately I am unable to do a follow up with the source so I know no more than that.
And now, PCMG76 is part of the "doping is required" banner advert that runs in the clinic? :rolleyes:

What is the alternative? Maybe another way to say it, how do anonymous Internet w@nkers discuss rampant doping in a way that satisfies your criticisms? It's not like doping has stopped. So, it's a legitimate question.

IMO, young elite athletes aren't hanging around forums so much.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Doping is still part of the culture. Point to a team that is not loaded with people who were involved with doping. Doping was part of their 'success' and now because JV says so they are going to ingore that path to success....

The media does so little about doping in sports that most young athletes believe it is a mniority.

pmcg comes across as naive at best.

the anti doping that is run by UCI is a joke. Sky spends a lot of time on Tenerife and no testing.

Kreuziger talked about 11months between OOC ABP tests......

Blame the clinic for the doping, that really works, anybody but the riders..
 
DirtyWorks said:
And now, PCMG76 is part of the "doping is required" banner advert that runs in the clinic? :rolleyes:

What is the alternative? Maybe another way to say it, how do anonymous Internet w@nkers discuss rampant doping in a way that satisfies your criticisms? It's not like doping has stopped. So, it's a legitimate question.

IMO, young elite athletes aren't hanging around forums so much.
You are right, that is speculation but if for example, RR says they heard that Froome was seen mainlining EPO, I would give it more consideration than if it were from certain other posters. I would also give the source more kudos than most of the stuff posted on here. As I said in the thread at the time, maybe it was a result of a personal feud so maybe mere scaremongering, otherwise I would have no idea why the the name was even mentioned other than to throw a red herring.

Lets not forget either that if Cooke finished ahead of dopers in a race, that by default automatically makes him a doper too!!

I already listed the ways doping should be discussed. Lets call it the hrotha/Libertine style of posting. Informed, rationale, hyperbole free. In general I have no problem with your posting style other than the repetitiveness of it. I can guess the general content of your posts before I even read them.
 
Benotti69 said:
Doping is still part of the culture. Point to a team that is not loaded with people who were involved with doping. Doping was part of their 'success' and now because JV says so they are going to ingore that path to success....

The media does so little about doping in sports that most young athletes believe it is a mniority.

pmcg comes across as naive at best.

the anti doping that is run by UCI is a joke. Sky spends a lot of time on Tenerife and no testing.

Kreuziger talked about 11months between OOC ABP tests......

Blame the clinic for the doping, that really works, anybody but the riders..
I already named a team who were not loaded with dopers yet you said they were definitely doping. Quelle surprise.

Just becasue I don't automatically believe that everyone from the top to bottom of cycling is doping doesn't make me naive. I am open-minded to many possibilities. In most walks of life, that is considered a good trait to have but I guess not for you.
 
I like and agree with some of your points, and with the Hitch as well.

This forum is designed to specifically talk about doping. Yes, the "they all dope" sentiment is widely expressed. I don't think that it has any influence on riders though, young or old, amateurs or pros. Riders don't need to read the Clinic to decide one way or another. They live in it. They see it.

The media doesn't say that doping doesn't exist in cycling: it ignores it. Some because they make a living out of it, others because they make a living out of it and have been involved in it (ex-dopers having a TV gig...). The only mentions about doping are along the lines of "since Armstrong got busted the sport is clean, with the exception of a few rotten apples doing it on their own", when too many things/facts indicate that it is a misrepresentation.

I'm more bothered by nationalistic blind support/denial than by loud skepticism. Some have reached the boiling point.

The Clinic also offers some very interesting posts with data, studies (i.e. MerckIndex's posts on Impey) so we can learn more about products/effects.

On an on, I'd rather be here than on the general forum discussing of the most epic racing, Riis in Hautacam, BigMig ITT in Luxembourg, which we know were frauds. At least here, we can call a cat a cat.
 
Tonton said:
I like and agree with some of your points, and with the Hitch as well.

This forum is designed to specifically talk about doping. Yes, the "they all dope" sentiment is widely expressed. I don't think that it has any influence on riders though, young or old, amateurs or pros. Riders don't need to read the Clinic to decide one way or another. They live in it. They see it.

The media doesn't say that doping doesn't exist in cycling: it ignores it. Some because they make a living out of it, others because they make a living out of it and have been involved in it (ex-dopers having a TV gig...). The only mentions about doping are along the lines of "since Armstrong got busted the sport is clean, with the exception of a few rotten apples doing it on their own", when too many things/facts indicate that it is a misrepresentation.

I'm more bothered by nationalistic blind support/denial than by loud skepticism. Some have reached the boiling point.

The Clinic also offers some very interesting posts with data, studies (i.e. MerckIndex's posts on Impey) so we can learn more about products/effects.

On an on, I'd rather be here than on the general forum discussing of the most epic racing, Riis in Hautacam, BigMig ITT in Luxembourg, which we know were frauds. At least here, we can call a cat a cat.
As I said a few times now, I have no problem with doping discussion and happy to engage. I said what my viewpoint was. The clinic is a necessity but I have pointed out what is flawed about this place. There are people who provide insightful stuff but there would be even more if this place was run correctly. It could be so much better.

Also I am not saying the clinic has a direct influence on making riders dope but the perceptible attitude that prevails here does encourage doping in the real world situation. If everyone is doped, then you must dope or quit. That is the mentality that was referred to in the article posted.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
I'll address the earlier points in just a moment, but this will be a quick one.

pmcg76 said:
You see Hitch, you cannot post without of course exaggerating things for effect. Nobody I have ever known of in the media has said doping has gone, night have said things have improved but not gone. Care to name a few who said it was gone?
Phil Liggett. The most recognizable voice of pro cycling to any up-and-coming American rider, and probably other nationalities as well. He said just that, point blank.

I distinctly remember one instance in 2008 where the peloton were trying to pull back an escapee. Liggett proclaimed, "They seem unable to pull him back. Perhaps they can't pull him back, there's no doping anymore, the peloton is clean." :rolleyes:

The implication being that a clean peloton could only do so much. Of course it beautifully neglected the implication that perhaps the very reason this supposedly clean peloton couldn't pull back the escapee was due to doping on the part of the lone hero-to-be.

Yup, that was all back in the good ol' days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAndBJSL8Xk&spfreload=10

It isn't my intention to dwell on this though. Liggett is a fool who should be banned from any association with the sport whatsoever. But that was just one example that sprang to mind of a very prominent figure in the promotion of pro cycling claiming, and stating publicly, precisely what Hitch suggested.
(If I must, I will dig up the footage of the exact race where that absurd observation occurred. I recorded everything to DVD for a while, so I'm sure it's around.)
 
pmcg76 said:
Also I am not saying the clinic has a direct influence on making riders dope
Really? Because that's buried in your rant on this thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1607561&postcount=53

Read the Clinic for any the period of time and the overwhelming sentiment is you have to dope, you have to dope, you have to dope. If that is what is constantly reinforced to the minds of young athletes coming through then guess what? Those young athletes will either quit or dope, it is negative reinforcement over and over and exactly what has got the sport in the mess in the first place. You have to dope, everyone is doping.

Please, take the hyperbole down a few notches before polluting another thread.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Read the Clinic for any the period of time and the overwhelming sentiment is you have to dope, you have to dope, you have to dope.
I find it very hard to believe that The Clinic could possibly have more influence on a young, aspiring pro than his/her observations of the real world around them on a daily basis.

But if so, couldn't it be just as easily spun the other way?
One could easily imagine a young athlete reading The Clinic and (hopefully) surmising that, "Damn, I better be clean as a whistle, because those folks in The Clinic have seen and heard every BS excuse from A to Z. They won't be fooled for one second if I get popped on a dope test. Not only that, they might humiliate me to no end should I turn out to be a doper, cheater and liar."

See how that works? You might want to think of The Clinic as providing a public service of great importance. All for free! :)
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
pmcg76 said:
If you were a young athlete heading for top ranks and you read the clinic, having to dope is the impression that becomes clear. That might not be what encourages them, but if that particular attitude is still the prevailing attitude within the peloton, then yes that attitude promotes doping. It might not be the clinic but it is that attitude.
I'm genuinely confused by the above. That would seem to exonerate The Clinic entirely from what you're accusing it of. :confused:


Look, I am enjoying this discussion and find it quite interesting, but I have to run at the moment. My humble thoughts to be continued...
 
DirtyWorks said:
Really? Because that's buried in your rant on this thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1607561&postcount=53

Read the Clinic for any the period of time and the overwhelming sentiment is you have to dope, you have to dope, you have to dope. If that is what is constantly reinforced to the minds of young athletes coming through then guess what? Those young athletes will either quit or dope, it is negative reinforcement over and over and exactly what has got the sport in the mess in the first place. You have to dope, everyone is doping.

Please, take the hyperbole down a few notches before polluting another thread.
Take down the level of hyperbole......in the Clinic? I think you might want to direct that at a lot more posters around here then. As for polluting threads, again maybe direct it at where it is most required.

I stick by what I said, if that negative re-inforcement attitude is drilled into young athletes, then yes they will follow that route or quit.
 
pmcg76 said:
Take down the level of hyperbole......in the Clinic? I think you might want to direct that at a lot more posters around here then. As for polluting threads, again maybe direct it at where it is most required.

I stick by what I said, if that negative re-inforcement attitude is drilled into young athletes, then yes they will follow that route or quit.
It is reality that brings young athletes to dope. They dope because others do it, because they get exposed to doping. Because they see the results first hand. Because it exists. Not because some talk about it. The king is naked. Any young rider can see it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
pmcg76 said:
I already named a team who were not loaded with dopers yet you said they were definitely doping. Quelle surprise.

Just becasue I don't automatically believe that everyone from the top to bottom of cycling is doping doesn't make me naive. I am open-minded to many possibilities. In most walks of life, that is considered a good trait to have but I guess not for you.
Again with the insults. I am not close minded.

There has been no monumental change to the sport that would make doping a risk not worth the reward. Anti doping testing is a joke. UCI are still a joke. Teams full of people who raced in a culture of doping. Doping docs still working away unmolested by the authorities. Funding for doping still tiny.

I can imagine a young pro looking at the guys from the 'reasoned decision' and it screams doping was so worth it. No doubt everyone is saying dope and dont be a major a$$hole and you can go far and make a nice bundle.

Di Luca was caught 3 times and still has a nice big bike shop and gymnasium for his efforts. He aint no barista!

Yet you want to believe that in an environment above that riders can win big races clean. I would love to think it was possible, it would give me someone to cheer for.



pmcg76 said:
..............

I stick by what I said, if that negative re-inforcement attitude is drilled into young athletes, then yes they will follow that route or quit.
Yeah, Zabel, Merckx, Riis, Martinelli, Vino, Hincapie etc etc all working with young riders are going to say dont dope

As for young riders reading the clinic to get hope for their future...i doubt it. I guess most in the sport laugh at the clinic and belittle it like Wiggins did.

This is only an echo chamber with 12 posters.......
 
pmcg76 said:
You see Hitch, you cannot post without of course exaggerating things for effect. Nobody I have ever known of in the media has said doping has gone, night have said things have improved but not gone. Care to name a few who said it was gone? I know your favourite journalist Walsh has never said that. Likewise maybe you could provide the links to Millar and McEwen saying it was impossible to be good with doping?

Millar is the one where he said he knows Contador is clean because its not possible to be that good if you are doping

"Does anybody out there seriously doubt that Contador was riding clean in the Giro d'Italia that has just finished? You don't win the biggest races in the world with such clockwork regularity and comparative ease, and in such style, by not being the supreme talent and clean
So I am clearly not exagerating there.

Mcewan was an interview in 2009 where he was asked to give a message to young kids and his message was don't do drugs because 99.9% are doing it clean - (implication being they make no difference). Same interview he praises Lance of course.
I think it was this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c-cYfDm2r0

As for the media, they might not say doping has "gone", in those words, but they certainly don't merely say things have improved, and plenty of the best selling newspapers have no qualms it outright proclaiming current gt winners to be clean.

A simple google search finds

Vincenzo Nibali’s Tour de France win gives Italy hope of a clean break
Canadian Ryder Hesjedal, the winner of the Giro d'Italia last week showed the world that it can be done without doping.
As cycling pieces itself back together in the wake of the Lance Armstrong disaster, Chris Froome is the ideal poster boy.

Polite, friendly, squeaky clean – and a supremely-gifted cyclist who can think on his pedals.
Despite the odd positive drugs test, cycling is considered to be a much cleaner sport now, which is universally welcomed. But has that affected speeds in the Tour de France?

A Wiggins win in the Tour de France was a first for British cycling and widely celebrated as a triumph for "clean" racing, after a series of negative headlines.

Or the article after Evans won the Tour which said the reason all the journalists applauded him was because they knew the TDF finally had a clean winner.
Or the number of English journos including sloberingham who said they know the sport is clean because wiggins and froome are dominating.

If journos are outright calling the current champions clean, even the very dodgy ones, that imo is more than just saying there have been improvements in anti doping.
 
Tonton said:
It is reality that brings young athletes to dope. They dope because others do it, because they get exposed to doping. Because they see the results first hand. Because it exists. Not because some talk about it. The king is naked. Any young rider can see it.
Whose reality is that though? Does anyone know what the reality is?

Remember DiLuca saying doping had gone very private so it was hard to know who was doing what, but that 90% of the Giro peloton were doping.

That is DiLuca's reality even though he doesn't actaully know and is randomly throwing out figures. Is that the reality or is DiLuca just trying to shift the blame for his own actions?

Lets take another example, Dan Martin is a guy with quite a few people including Vayer/Kimmage who have a bit of faith in him being clean. Maybe he is/maybe he isn't, but the clean option is simply dismissed by some around here.

But what if the reality is Martin is actually clean. What if young athletes believe Martin is clean and thus believe it is possible to reach that level clean. Will they be as quick to reach for the dope? Maybe if they can't reach that level they will just accept they don't have the talent and find another lower role within the sport instead of choosing to dope. What % of young athletes would be happy with a career like Martin's if they knew they could do it cleanly?

However if they are constantly told that is impossible to do what Dan Martin does clean, then they will most likely believe him to be a doper and will accept it is not possible to reach that level without doping therefore making the choice to dope easier to justify in their minds. The everyone is doping/Dan Martin is doping attitude might make then accept that is the reality and they are then faced with the choice even though that might not be the reality.

I am sure Phil Gaimon thought he knew what the reality was before he joined Garmin. Danielson was just another evil doper stealing wins from clean guys but now Gaimon is best buds with Danielson and see's a different side of the story one would imagine. A side that see's Gaimon give his all to help Danielson win those race he previoulsy believed he was cheating to win. I am sure there will be those who say Gaimon has been corrupted or fooled but that is for Gaimon to know. Gaimon was far more outspoken than Matt Cooke, thats for sure. From hating all those evil Euro dopers a few years back, Gaimon now believes himself to be a ProTour level rider capable of competing with those so called Euro dopers.


There is a segment in Tyler Hamiltons book about L-B-L in 97. He talked about how he knew that when a certain team-mate finished ahead of him at that race, this was proof positive of the difference EPO could make.

Turned out that the rider in question(Jemison??) who admitted to doping with EPO said he hadn't prepared with EPO for that race and just had a very good day. So in part Hamiltons decision to use EPO was based on a falsehood created by negative re-inforcement. He would probably still have faced that decision anyway but still interesting to note how he got it wrong.

How many riders have justified their decision to dope based on the everyone is doping attitude. Most I would say so it becomes a sort of self-fullfilling prophecy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS