Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may sound like

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may soun

Is Swart seriously offended because someone called Michael "Ferrari" Rogers a doper? Because if that's the case, either he actually don't know much about what happened in the past, or he is knowingly defending a doper. Seriously, Rogers...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Fluhme does not come across well in that exchange at all with the unsubstantiated insinuations. He might be antidoping, but he pretty conclusively proves himself to be an @@@####. And he appears to have had a prior beef with Dr. Swart.

I did not read it that way. Seems by some of the comments others did not read it that way either.

Dr. Swart has proved himself to be quite the "@@@####" also.

When he can't take the heat puts people on block. Seems to be a Coward who supports cycling cheats.

Correct.

I don't mind being called an "***", or being blocked, by Swart, but djpbaltimore should stop rewriting history. There was one guy, and one guy only, who began and continued the trolling and insulting in that discussion, and it wasn't Uli.

So both djpbaltimore and Jeroen Swart today brilliantly cementing this Uli tweet:
https://twitter.com/ulif/status/816676503287111680

The world of fighting doping is unglamorous and filled with threats and insults. But you get to keep your dignity and integrity.

Uli's voice is important also because he puts his name behind it, and therefore he puts to bed this pathetic last-resort argument the likes of Swart and pcmg76 love to throw out there, which goes like:
"well, you're anonymous, so whatever you say means *** anyway".

Furthermore, Uli is one of the very few who is both (a) part of the industry and (b) genuinely antidoping.
Dave Smith is another guy in this category and there are some more, but they are rare in kind, and they have my deepest respect.

 

[King Boonen]

Very refreshing to have someone like Uli more involved in anti-doping as he does seem to express the feelings of many fans who are sick of the current problems and ways of handling them.

Jeroen makes a very good point though. If you are part of an anti-doping committee you should really not be accusing riders who have never been caught of doping. It completely undermines the process, creates bias and would cause problems if the organisation he is now associated to ever had to pursue the athletes. Hopefully he can learn to channel his passion in better ways and he can have a positive influence.

 

[sniper]

That's fair enough. But should he therefore say "lack of doping evidence is evidence of innocence"?
And should he therefore loudly applaud when an unrepentant doper like Julich gets hired by BMC? (Jeroen called it "fantastic", iirc).
Of course not.
Its ignorant, its hypocrit, it's being supportive of cheating and doping.
Uli's criticism was bang on.
That Jeroen started insulting people left right and centre was a nice confirmation of that.

 

[Colonel]

Re:

That's fair enough. But should he therefore say "lack of doping evidence is lack of innocence"?
And should he therefore loudly applaud when an unrepentant doper like Julich gets hired by BMC? (Jeroen called it "fantastic", iirc).
Of course not.
Its incredibly hypocrit, whichever way you turn it.
Uli is bang on.

Not really and the reason is because Jeroen is not telling you what you want to hear. "I was involved in the testing and I think he is doping cheat". Because of that and not agreeing with you, he is now labelled everything under the sun with massive fabrications made up by yourself. Everything from helping athletes get off of doping - to aiding - to having JLA as his favourite celeb athlete. (He isnt even in the top 5 by the way).

Should he of turned around and said "yes Froome is a cheat" you would be signing his praises and more than likely have his picture up on your bedroom ceiling.

The issue comes in is that, when you really know the truth and then read accusations and fabrications you make its actually mind blowing how someone can come up with this stuff.

Im all for you being anti doping - but you so far removed from information with regards to Jeroen and also Barry Austin for that matter in South Africa that I sit here and think that you have to be joking with this to mess with everyone and cant think what you make up is real??

 

[King Boonen]

Of course not, there are more than 2 positions that can be held. There is no such thing as evidence of innocence.

I have no problem with anyone calling out unrepentant dopers and their continued careers in the peloton, my problem is with things like this:

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/816641013330677761

Anyone as good as Sagan is going to be suspicious, but for a member of anti-doping committee to start accusing riders of doping with no ongoing cases or convictions is ridiculous. I think he also accused Michael Rogers of several things he's never been convicted of?

 

[sniper]

That's fair enough. We can agree to hold a different view there. I welcome Uli speaking his mind. But I see why you think he shouldn't.

Either way. Swart should stop deflecting away from his own hypocrisy by means of insult and by focusing on the messenger. It's classic trolling. Last resort stuff.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Of course not, there are more than 2 positions that can be held. There is no such thing as evidence of innocence.

I have no problem with anyone calling out unrepentant dopers and their continued careers in the peloton, my problem is with things like this:

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/816641013330677761

Anyone as good as Sagan is going to be suspicious, but for a member of anti-doping committee to start accusing riders of doping with no ongoing cases or convictions is ridiculous. I think he also accused Michael Rogers of several things he's never been convicted of?

WTF is wrong with Swart. Ugh

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

That's fair enough. We can agree to hold a different view there. I welcome Uli speaking his mind. But I see why you think he shouldn't.

It's statements like this that remind me why I stopped posting much in here. There is a huge difference between speaking your mind and throwing around baseless accusations.

Of course not, there are more than 2 positions that can be held. There is no such thing as evidence of innocence.

I have no problem with anyone calling out unrepentant dopers and their continued careers in the peloton, my problem is with things like this:

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/816641013330677761

Anyone as good as Sagan is going to be suspicious, but for a member of anti-doping committee to start accusing riders of doping with no ongoing cases or convictions is ridiculous. I think he also accused Michael Rogers of several things he's never been convicted of?

WTF is wrong with Swart. Ugh

I think you quoted the wrong person Flo, he is correct to call out Uli in the tweet I linked to.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Correct.

I don't mind being called an "*******", or being blocked, by Swart, but djpbaltimore should stop rewriting history. There was one guy, and one guy only, who began and continued the trolling and insulting in that discussion, and it wasn't Uli.

So both djpbaltimore and Jeroen Swart today brilliantly cementing this Uli tweet:
https://twitter.com/ulif/status/816676503287111680

The world of fighting doping is unglamorous and filled with threats and insults. But you get to keep your dignity and integrity.

Uli's voice is important also because he puts his name behind it, and therefore he puts to bed this pathetic last-resort argument the likes of Swart and pcmg76 love to throw out there, which goes like:
"well, you're anonymous, so whatever you say means **** anyway".

Furthermore, Uli is one of the very few who is both (a) part of the industry and (b) genuinely antidoping.
Dave Smith is another guy in this category and there are some more, but they are rare in kind, and they have my deepest respect.

Ironic that it is you that is re-writing history. Like with continued smears of Hagerman, facts are not required. Also, maybe you should spend less time posting about other forum posters and more time about the topic of the thread.

The twitter war started with this one, a clear insinuation of scientific malfeasance.

Uli Fluhme
‏@ulif
@vayerism @JeroenSwart translation: "don't question my revenue source"

Also, Fluhme exhibited neither dignity nor integrity when he later called Dr. Swart pathetic. We have no idea whether Fluhme is genuinely anti-doping. I'm sure it would be very easy to play an association game to 'connect some dots' with him.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

It's statements like this that remind me why I stopped posting much in here. There is a huge difference between speaking your mind and throwing around baseless accusations.
I think you quoted the wrong person Flo, he is correct to call out Uli in the tweet I linked to.

could you give an example of a baseless accusation?

sure you'll agree there's nothing baseless about assuming Sagan is a doper.
Its an historically informed, objectively plausible, assumption.

If two countries go to war, and I assume both will commit warcrimes, that's not a baseless accusation either.
It's an historically informed, objectively plausible, assumption.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
he is correct to call out Uli in the tweet I linked to.

No he is not.
Uli wasn't the topic. The topic was: how can Swart applaud that piece by Cherise Stander about embracing dopers, when he himself has embraced Julich and when Froome (a rider defended by Swart in the recent past) and Cound both embraced Vino.
Swart made Uli the topic.
I can only assume he did that in order to deflect away from those questions as he was unable to answer them.

Nothing correct about deflecting from inconvenient questions by attacking the messenger.
It's called trolling.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

It's statements like this that remind me why I stopped posting much in here. There is a huge difference between speaking your mind and throwing around baseless accusations.
I think you quoted the wrong person Flo, he is correct to call out Uli in the tweet I linked to.

could you give an example of a baseless accusation?

sure you'll agree there's nothing baseless about assuming Sagan is a doper.
Its an historically informed, objectively plausible, assumption.

If two countries go to war, and I assume both will commit warcrimes, that's not a baseless accusation either.
It's an historically informed, objectively plausible, assumption.

Actually I don't agree. There might be enough rumour for us faceless mooks to debate it in the clinic but as a member of an anti-doping committee the standard of evidence required for him to make such claims is much, much higher.

Your war crimes comparison is in no way the same as you don't single out anyone. He has not called all pro cyclists dopers, he has singled out Sagan and by implying that we have a doped WC it is clear he believes that there are clean cyclists, otherwise why single him out?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

...
he is correct to call out Uli in the tweet I linked to.

No he is not.
Uli wasn't the topic. The topic was: how can Swart applaud that piece by Cherise Stander about embracing dopers, when he himself has embraced Julich and when Froome (a rider defended by Swart in the recent past) and Cound both embraced Vino.
Swart made Uli the topic.
I can only assume he did that in order to deflect away from those questions as he was unable to answer them.

Nothing correct about deflecting from inconvenient questions by attacking the messenger.
It's called trolling.

Yes he is. It doesn't make what Jeroen has said or done right and it might be deflecting and obfuscation, but he's still right. A member of an anti-doping committee should not be calling specific rider dopers without some very good, non-circumstantial evidence.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Actually I don't agree. There might be enough rumour for us faceless mooks to debate it in the clinic but as a member of an anti-doping committee the standard of evidence required for him to make such claims is much, much higher.

Your war crimes comparison is in no way the same as you don't single out anyone. He has not called all pro cyclists dopers, he has singled out Sagan and by implying that we have a doped WC it is clear he believes that there are clean cyclists, otherwise why single him out?

Where did Uli call Sagan a doper?
Can you show me?
You've mentioned this a couple of times now, but I havent seen it.
Please don't tell me you and Swart have been putting that statement into his mouth?


As for believing in clean cyclists, well of course we do.
The question is do we believe in clean pro-cyclists.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

...
Actually I don't agree. There might be enough rumour for us faceless mooks to debate it in the clinic but as a member of an anti-doping committee the standard of evidence required for him to make such claims is much, much higher.

Your war crimes comparison is in no way the same as you don't single out anyone. He has not called all pro cyclists dopers, he has singled out Sagan and by implying that we have a doped WC it is clear he believes that there are clean cyclists, otherwise why single him out?

Where did Uli call Sagan a doper?
Can you show me?
You've mentioned this a couple of times now, but I havent seen it.
Please don't tell me you and Swart have been putting that statement into his mouth?


As for believing in clean cyclists, well of course we do.
The question is do we believe in clean pro-cyclists.

It's in the tweet I linked to. As are the claims about Rogers which I don't believe were ever proved.

Again, I specifically said pro cyclists, I've made it bold for you.

 

[sniper]

It's not in the tweet you linked.
So you just made that up then?

How does he "clearly" think there are clean procyclists?
He clearly thinks there are clean cyclists.
I doubt he thinks there are clean pros.
But I don't see how that's relevant.

Why the need to put all sorts of things in his mouth?

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

It's not in the tweet you linked.
So you just made that up then?

How does he "clearly" think there are clean procyclists?
He clearly thinks there are clean cyclists.
I doubt he thinks there are clean pros.

Why the need to put all sorts of things in his mouth?

Yes it is. The use of the three wise monkeys makes it even more obvious.

If he thought all pro cyclists doped there would be no reason to single out a single cyclist as a doper. It wouldn't matter that the WC was a doper as there would be no possibility of a clean WC. He is clearly implying Sagan is a doper and it is either being ignored or covered up. That's the last I'm going to say on it, this discussion has become circular.

 

[gooner]

Re: Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may soun

He straight out accuses Sagan of doping and it's wrong for someone of his position as it carries influence and can be mistaken by some as knowledge.

I've no issue if he thinks Sagan is a doper but he should bite his tongue on the matter.

 

[sniper]

So indeed he didn't say it.
Thanks for confirming.
Swart attacking the messenger and making stuff up while at it.
Shocker.

 

[gooner]

Re:

So indeed he didn't say it.
Thanks for confirming.
Swart attacking the messenger and making stuff up while at it.
Shocker.

He did say it.

From what I see Uli got his nose up when Swart said he wasn't going to engage with anyone who resorts to insults. I think he said that in a general sense more than directing it at him. Yet Uli threw the smear regarding his revenue source.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Poor form by Uli to not stick to his guns about Sagan and then try to hide behind semantics and 'lawyer up'. Where is the integrity in that? Threatening someone with libel because they read the clear intent behind your tweets is also not very dignified.

@gooner is right. Uli inserted himself into the conversation first.

 

[sniper]

Post where he says it or stop saying he said it.

This is becoming a bit ridiculous.

If you have a valid argument, surely there is no need to twist people's words additionally.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Poor form by Uli to not stick to his guns about Sagan and then try to hide behind semantics and 'lawyer up'. Where is the integrity in that? Threatening someone with libel because they read the clear intent behind your tweets is also not very dignified.

@gooner is right. Uli inserted himself into the conversation first.

It's not very dignified. Hopefully he changes his approach as I can see someone like him doing some good when it comes to anti-doping.

 

[sniper]

Re: Uli Fluhme, or what a genuine antidoping stance may soun

...
I've no issue if he thinks Sagan is a doper but he should bite his tongue on the matter.

Well this is the whole point isn't it.
As Uli said, enough people biting their tongues. Not him.

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/816675989031895040
People who keep perpetuating the myth of certain riders being clean and making $$$ of it are part of the tumor that kills cycling.

https://twitter.com/ulif/status/816676503287111680
The world of fighting doping is unglamorous and filled with threats and insults. But you get to keep your dignity and integrity.