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

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

...
Being Anti-doping has been financially rewarding for Uli.

I do hope so.
Why you make it sound like it's a bad thing, i have no idea.

And I don't think the stuff he says on twitter is financially rewarding for him.
He still says it.

Again, the life-ban is a matter of opinion.
You may disagree with it. And for good reasons. In fact, I tend to agree with you to some extent. I wouldn't go for life-bans for 1st offenders either.
But it's a separate discussion. Imo it doesn't make Uli's antidoping stance any less genuine.

Seeing as I cast no value judgment whatsoever on Uli in relation to how he runs his race financially, I think this a great example of MY WORDS being twisted.

 

[sniper]

Let me spell it out for you. This is basic rethorics:

There's a difference between 1. saying soinething is a bad thing and 2. making something sound like it's a bad thing.

If i had chosen the first formulation, I'd have twisted your words like you did with Uli's.

I chose the second formulation, for a reason.

Likewise it would have been ok for you to say "Uli makes it sound like Sagan is a doper".
Saying "Uli says Sagan is a doper", otoh, is twisting his words.


You're welcome.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

Let me spell it out for you. This is basic rethorics:

There's a difference between 1. saying soinething is a bad thing and 2. making something sound like it's a bad thing.

If i had chosen the first formulation, I'd have twisted your words like you did with Uli's.

I chose the second formulation, for a reason.

Likewise it would have been ok for you to say "Uli makes it sound like Sagan is a doper".
Saying "Uli says Sagan is a doper", otoh, is twisting his words.


You're welcome.

Which is exactly what I did imply. Thank you for finally clarifying this point for everybody after accusing me wrongly 3 times yesterday. (I always enjoy lessons in rethorics.)

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Seeing as I cast no value judgment whatsoever on Uli

Are you taking the absolute piss here?

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.

Get your act together, djp.

 

[Irondan]

Please PM each other if you want to have a petty argument.

Cheers

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

...
Being Anti-doping has been financially rewarding for Uli.

I do hope so.
Why you make it sound like it's a bad thing, i have no idea.

And I don't think the stuff he says on twitter is financially rewarding for him.
He still says it.

Again, the life-ban is a matter of opinion.
You may disagree with it. And for good reasons. In fact, I tend to agree with you to some extent. I wouldn't go for life-bans for 1st offenders either.
But it's a separate discussion. Imo it doesn't make Uli's antidoping stance any less genuine.

Seeing as I cast no value judgment whatsoever on Uli in relation to how he runs his race financially, I think this a great example of MY WORDS being twisted.

Context matters, but I have made a correction so it is clear to everybody. I still think he is a bit of an @@@#### for the things that he said*. Saying that his anti-doping stance has benefited him financially is as neutral as that statement can be made.

* like today in his retweet of a Digger tweet.

Uli Fluhme Retweeted
**** the Hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum 7h7 hours ago
David Millar, JV, Wiggins, Brailsford in one room. Imagine the ########!

 

[djpbaltimore]

So the initial clash between Uli and Dr. Swart came on December 26th based on the unverified claim by Uli that...

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 26 Dec 2016
@Digger_forum @Cyclingnewsfeed I heard SA Antidoping only testing locals so eg UKAD would have to travel there. many triathletes also.

Bringing Dr. Swart into the conversation where they engage in a lengthy and mostly cordial conversation along with names that consistently bait his account because he is someone who will respond to the baits.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 26 Dec 2016
@EwonSprokler @Digger_forum are you allowed to test him @JeroenSwart ?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 26 Dec 2016
@ulif @EwonSprokler @Digger_forum I have no part in deciding who gets tested. But Digger is wrong on this. Foreign athletes tested regularly

Dr. Swart even points them in the direction where they can get the proof that they desire, even though he was on vacation. The break seems to be when Uli just flat out refuses to believe the answers given by Dr. Swart.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 26 Dec 2016
@vayerism @ulif @EwonSprokler @Digger_forum let's run through your points: 1) No foreign athlete tested in SA - incorrect

Uli Fluhme
‏@ulif
@JeroenSwart @vayerism @EwonSprokler @Digger_forum correct until proven incorrect

After one of the randoms uses the 'just lost the fat' line, Dr Swart lost his patience and lumped them as four trolls disturbing his vacation. (What a meanie :lol: ) At this point, if you ask him questions as an authority and then proceed to discard those answers because it does not suit your preconceived notions, what are you if not a troll? And then the insinuations start.

Uli Fluhme
‏@ulif
@JeroenSwart @Digger_forum @vayerism @EwonSprokler you can call me names all day long but you can't deal with facts that hurt your wallet

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 26 Dec 2016
@Digger_forum @vayerism @ulif @EwonSprokler you come in boxing and then want to claim you just wanted a polite chat. Jokers the lot of you.

Uli takes offense and dubiously calls that subjectively true observation from Dr. Swart an 'ad-hom', even though I don't think he realizes that he is just mostly a spectator to the ongoing battle between Dr. Swart and his regular twitter stalkers and I think is mostly an afterthought in the tweet.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

So the initial clash between Uli and Dr. Swart came on December 26th based on the unverified claim by Uli that...

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 26 Dec 2016
@Digger_forum @Cyclingnewsfeed I heard SA Antidoping only testing locals so eg UKAD would have to travel there. many triathletes also.

Bringing Dr. Swart into the conversation where they engage in a lengthy and mostly cordial conversation along with names that consistently bait his account because he is someone who will respond to the baits.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 26 Dec 2016
@EwonSprokler @Digger_forum are you allowed to test him @JeroenSwart ?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 26 Dec 2016
@ulif @EwonSprokler @Digger_forum I have no part in deciding who gets tested. But Digger is wrong on this. Foreign athletes tested regularly

Dr. Swart even points them in the direction where they can get the proof that they desire, even though he was on vacation. The break seems to be when Uli just flat out refuses to believe the answers given by Dr. Swart.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 26 Dec 2016
@vayerism @ulif @EwonSprokler @Digger_forum let's run through your points: 1) No foreign athlete tested in SA - incorrect

Uli Fluhme
‏@ulif
@JeroenSwart @vayerism @EwonSprokler @Digger_forum correct until proven incorrect

After one of the randoms uses the 'just lost the fat' line, Dr Swart lost his patience and lumped them as four trolls disturbing his vacation. (What a meanie :lol: ) At this point, if you ask him questions as an authority and then proceed to discard those answers because it does not suit your preconceived notions, what are you if not a troll? And then the insinuations start.

Uli Fluhme
‏@ulif
@JeroenSwart @Digger_forum @vayerism @EwonSprokler you can call me names all day long but you can't deal with facts that hurt your wallet

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 26 Dec 2016
@Digger_forum @vayerism @ulif @EwonSprokler you come in boxing and then want to claim you just wanted a polite chat. Jokers the lot of you.

Uli takes offense and dubiously calls that subjectively true observation from Dr. Swart an 'ad-hom', even though I don't think he realizes that he is just mostly a spectator to the ongoing battle between Dr. Swart and his regular twitter stalkers and I think is mostly an afterthought in the tweet.

Thank you for the succinct summary DP.

I have no objection to Uli being fervently against doping. I am too. However, his methods are not compatible with someone who sits on an anti-doping committee. He is also highly resistant to honest engagement as per the summary of the discussion you posted above. When politely corrected he resorts to insults and defamatory insinuations and when these are returned he cites "ad hom" attacks.

I have tried to be as transparent as possible with Sniper and I have gladly answered his questions regarding various concerns he might have on this very forum. These were immediately followed by praise and then some while later with some new or recycled confabulated conspiracies in keeping with his agenda to vilify me so as to undermine any rational discourse I might provide.

This continual circle becomes wearisome after almost 18 months of having to defend myself. Hence when he started trolling on twitter a few days ago I decided to put an end to the abuse. My comment regarding "tin hats" was directed at him and a few others with similar ideas. After blocking him on twitter he took clear offence and launched a tirade in 2 separate forums on this site.

I will answer the point about Julich and then be done:

Bobby Julich was not caught doping. He confessed to Team Sky (he could have lied and kept his job) and was summarily dismissed as a result. Prior to that I had some interactions with him regarding JL Augustyn's recovery from surgery and his rehab and I found him to be humble, open, courteous and a gentleman. I was therefore very happy to see him find a place in another job and hence my tweet. If Sniper feels that this is somehow an indication of a support for dopers then so be it. His praise for Floyd Landis, a person who got caught, spent years denying, spend other people's money defending himself, only to be proven a serial liar is in stark contrast to the story of Julich and is clear example of the hypocrisy he displays repeatedly.

I am sure that the tin hats will twist the above statement into one where I claim to be undermining the credibility of the anti-doping "inside" idol that Landis seems to be made into. It is not.

Which is why I have chosen to discontinue any interactions on this forum and on twitter with the likes of Sniper, Hog and similar types who do absolutely nothing credible, who blatantly fabricate stories and conspiracies, are openly libelous and who's absolutely disgraceful conduct seems to go completely uncensored on this forum.

 

[sniper]

Lol. So now you're making it about me, like you made it about Uli on twitter.

Yet me and Uli we weren't applauding that Cherise Stander piece on embracing dopers, were we?
You were.

As I said upthread, I don't have a problem with the embracing per se.
You do seem to have. Otherwise why applaud that Stander piece? Which is fair enough, really.

But then you're shown to embrace Julich, a rather unrepentant doper.
That's hypocrit stuff, objectively. That's the kind of double standards that defines hypocrisy.

And it's ok you know, to embrace those dopers. As I said upthread, I understand.
For instance, I've never criticized Lemond for embracing Indurain or Merckx.
I would have critiziced Lemond for it, though, if I'd have seen him tweeting and applauding that Cherise Stander piece the way you did.

That's all.

As for the insults. Lol.
I pointed out the above to you in normal words, and you called me an ***. Then you blocked me.
No problems with that though. I like how you expose yourself whilst rewriting history.
It's fun to watch.

 

[sniper]

It's also 'funny' to see you make an issue out of Uli working for an antidoping agency.
Whereas the real problem of present day topsports lies with guys who both (a) work for an antidoping agency and (b) coach athletes. That's where there is real danger of abuse.
Uli's alleged conflict of interest, if it really is one, it pales in comparison to yours.

And at the end of the day, what matters to me is that I see Uli trying to make a real contribution to clean sports, both vocally and in his job.
I don't see Jeroen doing much more than cheering when Julich is signed by BMC and claiming Froome "had the engine all along".

 

[djpbaltimore]

Uli is free to write what he writes. YMMV, but I don't see one benefit to what Uli is doing on Twitter. Like I said before, piling on Mick Rogers of all people and laying cowardly insinuations at the feet of Sagan that he will not stand behind do nothing IMO. I agree 100% with what gooner said about it earlier in the thread.

I'm interested in questioning, solutions and what people know. Not playing to the gallery like this and never will be interested in anything like this.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Thank you for the succinct summary DP.

No problem, I think it is important to go to the source on Twitter so that your words don't get twisted as they have so often on this forum by certain posters.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

It's also 'funny' to see you make an issue out of Uli working for an antidoping agency.
Whereas the real problem of present day topsports lies with guys who both (a) work for an antidoping agency and (b) coach athletes. That's where there is real danger of abuse.
Uli's alleged conflict of interest, if it really is one, it pales in comparison to yours.

And at the end of the day, what matters to me is that I see Uli trying to make a real contribution to clean sports, both vocally and in his job.
I don't see Jeroen doing much more than cheering when Julich is signed by BMC and claiming Froome "had the engine all along".

Once again fairly typical of how you distort or misrepresent facts and how you omit information to suit an agenda. So let me educate you and correct you once again.

1) In my post above I did not say Uli's stance was hypocritical. I said it was inconsistent with someone in a position on an anti-doping panel. If he wants to be credible in that field then throwing out unsubstantiated allegations (whatever the likelihood of them being true or not) impacts on his credibility in the real world.

2) You have absolutely no understanding of what Cherise's column was about. So let me fill you in. We have worked very hard to implement a successful ABP programme in SA (despite your allegations that I have made no contribution to anti-doping). We have had a number of professional and elite cyclists who have been sanctioned in the past 4 years. Only 1 (David George) admitted doping (and I have much respect for him for taking it on the chin), the others have all come up with incredible excuses and scenarios. The problem that Cherise highlighted is that these same athletes are welcomed back after their suspensions and are sponsored and allowed to make a living off the sport.

3) Related to the above is my stance on doping (which you call hypocritical) so let me put your speculation to rest:

a) I hate dopers and I will work very hard to eliminate doping in our sport (we are working on a very novel research study that might be a game changer).

b) I absolutely detest dopers who haven't accepted their suspension or repented. My views on Valverde are clear and I have voiced them on twitter frequently.

c) I do feel that people deserve a second chance in some circumstances. I would not be happy for them to race again. I feel that dopers should never return to competition (and in agreement with Uli on this). Someone like Julich who admitted his history despite having the opportunity to stay silent is an example of this.


4) You repeatedly bring up conflict of interest as though there is some conspiracy that I am involved in. I was utterly transparent in an earlier post, following which you were clear about how satisfied you were.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30335&p=2002009&hilit=SAIDS#p2002009

"Thanks for expanding on your situation with regards to Sky, JLA and SAIDS, Jeroen. Appreciate it, interesting, and certainly fair enough."

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Another series of posts by Sniper praising my fairness and transparency.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=17756&p=2024754&hilit=TUE#p2024754

Only to reverse course again a short while later.

The lack of consistency is appalling.

 

[Mr.38%]

Wow, how you keep your cool (well mostly is admirable. I'd be constantly punching monitor, desk, wall and everything else if in frustration if I was in your position.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Now, he is critical of a German author writing a piece against Russian doping?

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif Jan 8
@dw_sports @DopingReport @joschaweber all of Germany has lost the right to point fingers elsewhere many decades ago

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...1) In my post above I did not say Uli's stance was hypocritical. I said it was inconsistent with someone in a position on an anti-doping panel. If he wants to be credible in that field then throwing out unsubstantiated allegations (whatever the likelihood of them being true or not) impacts on his credibility in the real world.

I didn't say you said Uli's stance was hypocritical.
I said you made an issue of it. Which you seem to be confirming here.

2) You have absolutely no understanding of what Cherise's column was about. So let me fill you in. We have worked very hard to implement a successful ABP programme in SA (despite your allegations that I have made no contribution to anti-doping). We have had a number of professional and elite cyclists who have been sanctioned in the past 4 years. Only 1 (David George) admitted doping (and I have much respect for him for taking it on the chin), the others have all come up with incredible excuses and scenarios. The problem that Cherise highlighted is that these same athletes are welcomed back after their suspensions and are sponsored and allowed to make a living off the sport.

It's really as if you're describing Julich here.
Incredibile scenario? check,
Welcomed back? check,
Sponsored and allowed to make a living off the sport? check.

b) I absolutely detest dopers who haven't accepted their suspension or repented. My views on Valverde are clear and I have voiced them on twitter frequently.

c) I do feel that people deserve a second chance in some circumstances. I would not be happy for them to race again. I feel that dopers should never return to competition (and in agreement with Uli on this). Someone like Julich who admitted his history despite having the opportunity to stay silent is an example of this.

The concept of 'good doper bad doper', very nicely illustrated here.
You say he "admitted his history"? Are you taking the absolute piss?
Whilst you were celebrating and applauding his signing by BMC, here's what Steve Tilford thought about Julich's 'confession':
http://stevetilford.com/2012/10/26/another-i-smoked-pot-but-didnt-inhale-confession-by-bobby-julich-2/

And no, he did not have 'the opportunity to stay silent'. The French Senate was onto him.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-senate-releases-positive-epo-cases-from-1998-tour-de-france/

Your defense of Julich whilst deploring the embracing of ex-dopers is really all over the place.

4) You repeatedly bring up conflict of interest as though there is some conspiracy that I am involved in. I was utterly transparent in an earlier post, following which you were clear about how satisfied you were.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30335&p=2002009&hilit=SAIDS#p2002009

"Thanks for expanding on your situation with regards to Sky, JLA and SAIDS, Jeroen. Appreciate it, interesting, and certainly fair enough."

Yes I was happy with your explanation. Doesn't mean there isn't a conflict of interest. And it's worse than Uli's.
So I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't begun making it about Uli.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Errrr.... Julich confessed about 9 months before the French senate. And they only listed his sample as 'suspicious'.

 

[gooner]

Re:

Now, he is critical of a German author writing a piece against Russian doping?

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif Jan 8
@dw_sports @DopingReport @joschaweber all of Germany has lost the right to point fingers elsewhere many decades ago

Reading that article, I don't know how anyone who deems themselves anti-doping can see fault with it.

This thing "you're German you can't comment" is stupid talk.

 

[gooner]

He says Germany has lost the right to question Russia, but he somehow then wants the journalist in question to write about others elsewhere.

Uli Fluhme ‏@ulif 23h23 hours ago
.@joschaweber @dw_sports @DopingReport I expect a follow-up story from you on Salazar, German Biathlon, UK Cycling and FC Barcelona. Thanks

 

[sniper]

I actually think that's a great point by Uli.
Two great tweets, imo.

But probably no good idea to have that Russia discussion again, as we've been having it plentifully in other threads.

 

[gooner]

Germany can't comment on this.

But Germany can comment on this.

Great stuff.

 

[sniper]

I think you missed Ulis point, or at least your reading of it differs from mine.

But lets do everybody a favor and not go there now. Or at least not in this thread.
We have the "more lame Russia bashing" thread for that.

 

[djpbaltimore]

What Uli really wants is a followup piece on Peter Sagan, Peter Sagan, and Peter Sagan. It is amazing how many doping references to Sagan are on his feed.

 

[sniper]

well. Can't accuse him an anti-anglophone bias.