UCI Spitting their dummy.

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Andynonomous said:
When someone believes the charges against their favorite athlete, they will try to change the subject. I see these same tactics used by fans in other sports as well.


- Other sports do it too.
- Other athletes do it too.
- Other countries do it too.
- You can't prove it in a court of law.
- There is a technicality that should get them off.
- It's more fun to watch juiced up athletes, because their accomplishments are greater.
- You accusers are just jealous.
- You accusers are stupid.
- You accusers are crazy.
- You accusers don't understand the sport,...

Using these types of excuses, is a tacit admission that their favorite is a likely doper. They are just here to defend them IN SPITE of their suspicions.
Such a genius, perhaps you can tell me who all my favourites are?
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
Exactly. The banned of ARD is simply a move by the UCI to bully anyone thinking of being critical into silence.

So don't expect anything critical of Dertie, Frodo, Riis, Hog from CN, ES etc
I don't know why you're so critical of cyclingnews all the time. I agree that Eurosport has a questionable history with it's Armstrong specials and all that, but cyclingnews has been pretty good about the doping stuff at least since I've begun reading the site a couple years ago. ARD, ZDF and practically the entire German media also were on the Omerta-hype train for many years until Ullrich destroyed their illusions, you know?...
 
Weapons of @ss Destruction said:
Commercialism and ethics do not have to be mutually independent. I will place a higher level of my personal interest and support toward sports that I feel offer more ethical value, since this is at the core of what I consider sport. If enough like-minded individuals express similar values, then eventually the larger commercial opportunity for those in the profession is to play to that market.

The rest looking purely for entertainment spectacle are welcome to watch professional wrestling instead.
But how does anyone decide which sport is more ethical, becasue the media tells them?
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
pmcg76 said:
Such a genius, perhaps you can tell me who all my favourites are?
andy1234 said:
It might be worth actually reading the post next time you respond.
His main message was that this forum is full of apologists.
he didn't address either one of you.
You guys nonetheless felt addressed.
 
spalco said:
I don't know why you're so critical of cyclingnews all the time. I agree that Eurosport has a questionable history with it's Armstrong specials and all that, but cyclingnews has been pretty good about the doping stuff at least since I've begun reading the site a couple years ago. ARD, ZDF and practically the entire German media also were on the Omerta-hype train for many years until Ullrich destroyed their illusions, you know?...
Because he wants the media to emply the same criteria as he does for accusing people who he thinks dope. So start from the perspective that everyone dopes and anytime a rider attacks in a race, call them out as dopers like he does.
 
Dec 7, 2010
4,453
0
0
pmcg76 said:
So I am just extending that hypothesis to a point where that actually happens and trying to predict what the future would hold. If this did happen, cycling would be reduced to the level of cyclo-cross or soemthing and dont get me wrong because I love cyclo-cross. If people are ok with that, fine by me I would still follow the sport.
Funny you should mention that. I was thinking along the same lines.

If pro cycling was decimated tomorrow--networks refused coverage, all the sponsors pulled out, etc--I would bet that people like Adam Myerson would still be putting on cyclo-cross events in New England. And I would still go. I go to those now, why wouldn't I continue?

If that were all that were left, then eventually more riders would show up to race and more people would show up to watch. Then some media outlet would start to cover it, then more people would attend, then...

It's like the regrowth after a forest fire--an eternal process.



 
pmcg76 said:
But how does anyone decide which sport is more ethical, becasue the media tells them?
People will have to use their own best judgement based on the body of information that is available to them. Yes, media sources are part of that body of information. The depth to which any individual will go to ascertain this collection of data points will vary widely by the individual.

In large, complex "systems" of this type, things have a way of shaking themselves out over time, or at least bouncing around to different equilibrium points. We're all just cogs in the machine, but the machine doesn't work if each cog doesn't do what it's meant to do. I'm a cog that's meant to express my desire for ethical sporting environments and share that opinion to those who I interact with in this context. :eek:
 
sniper said:
His main message was that this forum is full of apologists.
he didn't address either one of you.
You guys nonetheless felt addressed.
Well considering the criteria set out here, I would think I fall under the doping apologist crowd especially as he responded after quite a few of my posts.
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
spalco said:
I don't know why you're so critical of cyclingnews all the time. I agree that Eurosport has a questionable history with it's Armstrong specials and all that, but cyclingnews has been pretty good about the doping stuff at least since I've begun reading the site a couple years ago. ARD, ZDF and practically the entire German media also were on the Omerta-hype train for many years until Ullrich destroyed their illusions, you know?...
CN has long been the UCI's semi-official mouth piece, they've spent years on the Armstrong bandwagon, they were very uncritical when Landis was popped, but as soon as Landis broke omerta they put the boot in on him. Landis upholding omerta - good guy, Landis blowing the whistle - disgraced drunken waster.

They provide a mouthpiece for McQuaid, Millar etc to put the boot into anyone critical, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to ask tough questions. Then the hacks whine on Twitter when they get accused of being complicit in omerta.

Anyone thought of asking Vaughters about a Lim, Matt White etc?

Seriously, how anyone could post that last Millar interview with a straight face I have no idea.

The stitching up of Landis was one of the most disgraceful pieces of hatchet journalism ever.

Daniel Freibe is a **** of the highest order.

I know that ARD was on the bandwagon till Ullrich, just like other media was before Festina etc, the point is that while Ullrich was the turning point for ARD and resulted in more critical coverage, for CN etc, their response has been more of the same and more toeing the UCI party line. Afterall, don't want to post anything critical or question that might interrupt those exclusive interviews.

CN, is as much an upholder of omerta as Pozzato, Millar, Armstrong and McQuaid.

Paul Kimmage said:
There is only one thing worse than reading Cyclingnews&#8230]
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
CN has long been the UCI's semi-official mouth piece, they've spent years on the Armstrong bandwagon, they were very uncritical when Landis was popped, but as soon as Landis broke omerta they put the boot in on him. Landis upholding omerta - good guy, Landis blowing the whistle - disgraced drunken waster.

They provide a mouthpiece for McQuaid, Millar etc to put the boot into anyone critical, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to ask tough questions. Then the hacks whine on Twitter when they get accused of being complicit in omerta.

Anyone thought of asking Vaughters about a Lim, Matt White etc?

Seriously, how anyone could post that last Millar interview with a straight face I have no idea.

The stitching up of Landis was one of the most disgraceful pieces of hatchet journalism ever.

Daniel Freibe is a **** of the highest order.

I know that ARD was on the bandwagon till Ullrich, just like other media was before Festina etc, the point is that while Ullrich was the turning point for ARD and resulted in more critical coverage, for CN etc, their response has been more of the same and more toeing the UCI party line. Afterall, don't want to post anything critical or question that might interrupt those exclusive interviews.

CN, is as much an upholder of omerta as Pozzato, Millar, Armstrong and McQuaid.
Not necessarily disagreeing with any of the above, but IMHO there's been some improvement from CN in the balance of editorial content (although perhaps some editorial contributors still retain a certain bias to one side or the other?)

If I'm to give a bit of a nod to Landis, Hamilton, etc. for improving their position over time (not to their original act of doping) then I have to give a similar nod to CN.

One could argue that the gradual shift in CN's balance point is strictly based on economic factors e.g. publish content they think will attract eyeballs, but that's another topic altogether.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Granville57 said:
Funny you should mention that. I was thinking along the same lines.

If pro cycling was decimated tomorrow--networks refused coverage, all the sponsors pulled out, etc--I would bet that people like Adam Myerson would still be putting on cyclo-cross events in New England. And I would still go. I go to those now, why wouldn't I continue?

If that were all that were left, then eventually more riders would show up to race and more people would show up to watch. Then some media outlet would start to cover it, then more people would attend, then...

It's like the regrowth after a forest fire--an eternal process.



me like zis post. me like ze metaphor. me say: +1
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
Weapons of @ss Destruction said:
Not necessarily disagreeing with any of the above, but IMHO there's been some improvement from CN in the balance of editorial content (although perhaps some editorial contributors still retain a certain bias to one side or the other?)

If I'm to give a bit of a nod to Landis, Hamilton, etc. for improving their position over time (not to their original act of doping) then I have to give a similar nod to CN.

One could argue that the gradual shift in CN's balance point is strictly based on economic factors e.g. publish content they think will attract eyeballs, but that's another topic altogether.
I can agree with that. Although Freibe's knowledge of cycling can be written on the back of a postage stamp and Benson is far too much of a fanboy to be really critical.

Ultimately, CN is being left behind by the likes of NYVelocity.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
andy1234 said:
In that case why watch professional sports at all?

There are plenty of grass roots sports you could follow instead.

Professional sport is all about commercialism, the clue is in the title.
But doping isn't in the title. Because someone gets paid to compete that is a free for all professionals to dope? Not in my opinion.

I see it as someone gets paid to compete they have a greater obligation to compete fairly.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Who the **** is going to throw stones at other sports, that is my point which I listed in a previous post which obvioulsy you missed.

Cycling cleans up thanks to the media but how will cycling be perceived as being cleaner than other sports if those other sports are not scrutinised. Will the media start scrutinising other sports the way they have with cycling. If the answer is yes, they why are they not doing it now?

In the general publics view, what is the difference between a clean sport and what we had pre Festina when no doping was ever reported.
I have underlined the key word in all this - perception.

Cycling has earned its reputation because there was a perception that doping was widespread and then that there was a perception (put out by the UCI /riders/teams) that the stakeholders had started to tackle it.

If pro-cycling actually adopted an anti-doping stance (by independent testing) then it would be the fore runner in anti-doping.
The media/general public would soon look at other sports who do not adopt such measures.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I have underlined the key word in all this - perception.

Cycling has earned its reputation because there was a perception that doping was widespread and then that there was a perception (put out by the UCI /riders/teams) that the stakeholders had started to tackle it.

If pro-cycling actually adopted an anti-doping stance (by independent testing) then it would be the fore runner in anti-doping.
The media/general public would soon look at other sports who do not adopt such measures.
Good quote yesterday:

To the effect of: 'Changing perception is harder to achieve than the large effort required to create it in the first place'

Of course, as long as you keep trying to cement one perception you are going to have an even harder time changing it to another.

Dave.
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
D-Queued said:
Good quote yesterday:

To the effect of: 'Changing perception is harder to achieve than the large effort required to create it in the first place'

Of course, as long as you keep trying to cement one perception you are going to have an even harder time changing it to another.

Dave.
The problem is the 'Prentice Steffen problem' where you have people like saying that anti-doping 'is about perception rather than reality.'

There are lots of people in the sport, and the authorities who are trying to create the perception that the sport is more serious about cleaning up than it really is. Which is why we need a critical media to strip away the bull**** that the teams and the UCI feed us.

Until the reality is a sport which is taking serious steps to clean up the perception can't change.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
D-Queued said:
Good quote yesterday:

To the effect of: 'Changing perception is harder to achieve than the large effort required to create it in the first place'

Of course, as long as you keep trying to cement one perception you are going to have an even harder time changing it to another.

Dave.
Which is why any movement to clean up the sport now has to be done outside of Procyclings stakeholders.

They had their chance to do so (not eliminate doping, but to tackle it) and they didn't do so - any comments from them on anti-doping will rightly always be viewed with skepticism which is why they need to be removed from the process.
 
Aug 1, 2009
328
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Which is why any movement to clean up the sport now has to be done outside of Procyclings stakeholders.

They had their chance to do so (not eliminate doping, but to tackle it) and they didn't do so - any comments from them on anti-doping will rightly always be viewed with skepticism which is why they need to be removed from the process.
I think this is the essence of Landis' "burn it down" attitude, having concluded that everything about the existing structure is rotten.

I am not as optimistic as Dr. M. is about test regimes, so I don't know if the re-growth wouldn't end up flawed as well (probably in different ways).

-dB
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
dbrower said:
I think this is the essence of Landis' "burn it down" attitude, having concluded that everything about the existing structure is rotten.

I am not as optimistic as Dr. M. is about test regimes, so I don't know if the re-growth wouldn't end up flawed as well (probably in different ways).

-dB
Well, yes and no.

The burn it to the ground mantra sounds fabulous - but its what you rebuild it with thats the key.
All sports need an administration to set rules, organize and promote the sport, that will never change - but they should not also be in control of 'anti-doping'.

As for test regimes - I wouldn't say I am 'optimistic' about it, however the UCI has never been proactive in anti-doping.
When AFLD did the Tour testing they caught a few riders, the main reason was because they target tested and didn't announce what current tests they had.
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
Throwing your toys out of the pram.

1. Spit the Dummy

To indulge in a sudden display of anger or frustration; to lose one’s temper. The phrase is usually used of an adult, and the implication is that the outburst is childish, like a baby spitting out its dummy in a tantrum and refusing to be pacified. (Dummy is a pacifier)
UCI opens mouth and bull**** promptly follows - this kind of ridiculous statement is exactly the reason why we need ARD etc - we need people to stand up to the UCI and say 'sorry but that claim is complete nonsense.'

Still this seems to be the UCI partyline. Only 2% of the peloton dope...
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
Benotti69 said:
But doping isn't in the title. Because someone gets paid to compete that is a free for all professionals to dope? Not in my opinion.

I see it as someone gets paid to compete they have a greater obligation to compete fairly.
The point is that professional cycling is a commercial venture. Its primary purpose is to be a shop window for potential customers of associated products and services.

In order for it to succeed, the organistional bodies behind it, who are tasked with its growth, MUST accentuate the positive elements over the negative.

Comparisons between other sports are necessary, because professional cycling competes in a global marketplace with those other sports. As such, it needs to follow the rules of that marketplace. If professional cycling is consistantly promoted in a negative manner, it will fail against those equally corrupt, but positively promoted sports.

Now, if you are not interested in following the commercially driven section of the sport (along with the necessary marketing stance that needs to be taken, in order to attract investors) then there are many other levels of the sport that have more noble reasons for existing.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
andy1234 said:
The point is that professional cycling is a commercial venture. Its primary purpose is to be a shop window for potential customers of associated products and services.
Of course not - all pro sports are just that, pro sports.

Pro-sports 'primary purpose' is that its athletes can earn a living by being professionals/
The sponsors/investors are drawn to sports on a easy concept of return of investment.

andy1234 said:
In order for it to succeed, the organistional bodies behind it, who are tasked with its growth, MUST accentuate the positive elements over the negative.
No, the 'organisational bodies' should be ensuring that their sport adheres to the principals of sport.

andy1234 said:
Comparisons between other sports are necessary, because professional cycling competes in a global marketplace with those other sports. As such, it needs to follow the rules of that marketplace. If professional cycling is consistantly promoted in a negative manner, it will fail against those equally corrupt, but positively promoted sports.
This is where your overall point fails - cycling is not "consistantly promoted in a negative manner", it is consistently exposed as not being as positive as promoted.

andy1234 said:
Now, if you are not interested in following the commercially driven section of the sport (along with the necessary marketing stance that needs to be taken, in order to attract investors) then there are many other levels of the sport that have more noble reasons for existing.
In any business if there is a 'negative' element, you tackle it - not ignore it and try to spin out of it.

How are the 'other levels' of cycling meant to thrive if the Pro side (its shop window) is continually exposed as a sham.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Of course not - all pro sports are just that, pro sports.

Pro-sports 'primary purpose' is that its athletes can earn a living by being professionals/
The sponsors/investors are drawn to sports on a easy concept of return of investment..
Nonsense. The primary purpose of pro sports is to ADVERTISE and SELL. If it isn't its called Amateur sports.
The primary purpose of McDonalds is not to employ people, it's to sell burgers. The fact that pro cyclists or burger flippers are paid is simply as a result of the employers or sponsors requiring them for their business.


Dr. Maserati said:
No, the 'organisational bodies' should be ensuring that their sport adheres to the principals of sport..
Professional sport does not exist without the interested parties making money. "ensuring that their sport adheres to the principals of sport" is a component of what the organisational bodies oversee, but only a component.


Dr. Maserati said:
This is where your overall point fails - cycling is not "consistantly promoted in a negative manner", it is consistently exposed as not being as positive as promoted..
What is realistic then? A monthly press release on the suspicions of things that might or might not be happening in the sport Positive dope test are made public. Should the UCI take it a step further and publish a list of riders who might be doping,without the proof to back it up? (oh wait, that happened)

Concentrating on the negative is commercial suicide.

Dr. Maserati said:
In any business if there is a 'negative' element, you tackle it - not ignore it and try to spin out of it..
Worked in many major organisations doc? As true as your statement may be, the tackling is done behind closed doors, not in front of the customer.

Dr. Maserati said:
How are the 'other levels' of cycling meant to thrive if the Pro side (its shop window) is continually exposed as a sham.
The same question can be asked of any sport.
The main difference is that most professional sports do not have their seedy side exposed so frequently as professional cycling.
The same dirt exists, but it's not as newsworthy as good cycling doping story.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
andy1234 said:
Nonsense. The primary purpose of pro sports is to ADVERTISE and SELL. If it isn't its called Amateur sports.
The primary purpose of McDonalds is not to employ people, it's to sell burgers. The fact that pro cyclists or burger flippers are paid is simply as a result of the employers or sponsors requiring them for their business.
Oh dear - Pro sports exist because of the sport.

To allow it be a professional sport ie teams/athletes earn money, they sell advertising of the sport.

andy1234 said:
Professional sport does not exist without the interested parties making money. "ensuring that their sport adheres to the principals of sport" is a component of what the organisational bodies oversee, but only a component.
'Organisational bodies'? The UCI?
They are there to oversee all the sport - they do however act in the principal you put forth, which is why they are failing at promoting the sport.


andy1234 said:
What is realistic then? A monthly press release on the suspicions of things that might or might not be happening in the sport Positive dope test are made public. Should the UCI take it a step further and publish a list of riders who might be doping,without the proof to back it up? (oh wait, that happened)

Concentrating on the negative is commercial suicide.
Again you think that someone (not sure who) is 'concentrating on the negative' - they aren't, they (UCI etc) are trying to hide it and it keeps being exposed.

andy1234 said:
Worked in many major organisations doc? As true as your statement may be, the tackling is done behind closed doors, not in front of the customer.
Yes I have - the testing, media, police etc have blown the hinges off the door a long time ago.

andy1234 said:
The same question can be asked of any sport.
The main difference is that most professional sports do not have their seedy side exposed so frequently as professional cycling.
The same dirt exists, but it's not as newsworthy as good cycling doping story.
Hmmm - you're getting there.
Why is it cycling manages to be exposed if it was as 'clean' as it is 'promoted'? (Hint, it isn't)

Again - in any organisation, when a problem is exposed you tackle it not attempt to spin out of it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS