-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
mowie133 said:
That would also mean that Basso, David Millar, and others that I can't think of right now should not be in the Tour.
ManInFull said:
But Millar is British, different rules aplie to him on this forum or Lance who was later caught on epo in tour of 99 but because they were contra samples they couldn't be used for evidence... And Basso is so friendly...
ingsve said:
Funny thing is, I think if we had to vote for one guy to be the leader of the world, the face of humanity at its best, the most popular entry by far would be an old black guy who amongst other things sanctioned the bombing of innocent men, women and children. Actually, he might well be seen as having the personal traits that we would like all our presidents to aspire too.
You see, to you it might be a black and white "akin to murder" case, to me, even if it is "murder". "murder" still isn't always that clear cut. Context matters.
Even ignoring nebulous things as personal taste, I am fully aware of Vino's (and others') transgression, but I can also see a wider context. It seems that I am not the only one who, on balance, is quite happy to support the murdering cycling terrorist.
That isn't hypocritical nor disgusting. It is a personal judgement (or taste) that has equally well-founded and arguable points of view in its pockets, as having a personal opinion that adds up to a preference to see people like Vino to stay a mile away from racing, or at least be less liked by all.
But feel free to feel more righteous than me for having a different pov.
Jeezis. WTF are you trying to say? Whatever society you belong to, you gotta be the short end.mowie133 said::
careful on your high horse there princess...yes when we have a boo we promance enhancing drugs you clown3rd world country lol one of the richest in the world mate!
oh dear that last statement by you is just dumb dumb,
Black-Balled said:
LMAO. BB just owns mowie.
I'm with Ryo Hazuki here. Vino did the crime then served the time. Welcome back. Those are the rules. Plus, I do think he's been the most exciting rider to watch in the last 5-6 years.
Francois the Postman said:
I agree that context matters and that at some rare occasions hard desicions are made for a greater good. I'm guessing you are referring to Mandela. I'm not familiar enough with the circumstances to know how I would to judge that but tell me this: In what context within the sport of cycling is it ever justifiable to cheat? There is no greater good involved in cheating. It's only egotistical by it's very nature. Also noone is forced into cheating. It's always premeditated.
Francois the Postman said:
Not all personal judgements are equally valid simply be virtue of being a personal opinion. Things need to be evaluated based on their merits and the most important value to assess is how much harm or damage something does. Treating cheaters as if they were heroes is in my opinion harmful to the sport because it makes it more likely for riders to take the risk of cheating since they can simply come back as if nothing happened. Especially when those people have done nothing to remedy the problem of cheating as a whole. Vino even talked about winning LBL being a revenge for him as if he had been wrongfully suspended.
Probably more a clinic discussion by now, but I can't answer the question without mentioning doping. I'll answer the wider case of cheating, and to be clear up front: it will be my last post on the matter in this thread.
It's probably usually premeditated, I wouldn't put it past some teams to have turned riders into cheats against their knowledge too. But talking about those that do make the decision (the vast majority of cheats I think):
For starters: I don't like it. I wanna be very clear about that.
For seconds: I do admire those that step away from it because it's a hurdle they are unwilling to jump, even if that means giving up on a source of income to feed your family with. there are people not involved with cycling because cycling as it is not the level playing field you can compete on "fairly".
The circumstance under which I can understand it: if cheating has become so institutionalised (including collusion with those that ought to stamp it out), that without going the same route, you won't be able to participate (either by not getting the places that you would have gotten in the hypothetical clean version, or because you simply would be considered "too weak" to even be fielded), or you can't accept that the lucrative spoils you would otherwise (possibly) have a fair shot at are placed out of a strong arm's length.
It's not like riders can decide which version of pro-cycling they want to join. It hasn't been "a fair clean level fight" for ages. You are in or out. Clean or tainted. With all the consequences that come with it.
And to all but the lucky few, sport is a source of income, not a "greater good". It's ok for us to mythologise it all, but there are people on the road with a couple of years in their legs that will have to pay for hospital bills, a house, school for kids, etc. Risking serious injury. Who see people around them getting away with it, making their own job nigh impossible, and putting their only source of income at risk to boot.
I agree. But I wasn't the one who claimed that murder would preclude someone from being someone people would ever vote for.
Can we just start from a base where you don't start with defining what is most important for me or others? I can predict with great confidence that we disagree about something fundamental to the rest of the discussion, especially if you don't even bother to define "harm". What harm? Harm to whom? By whom? Most important compared to what?
Ah, I think we are getting somewhere. "Treating them as heroes". The thing is, I don't treat them as "heroes". Why should I? You are making an assumption about my attitude that is false. If your base assumption is false, your conclusion might warrant a second look.
I find it hard to see any of these sports folk as "heroes", for the simple reason that "heroic deeds" fall in a totally different class of activities and decisions to me. Riding two wheels up a hill for personal gain, not so much. Deciding to step into a situation at a potential cost to yourself for the benefit of others, that's the fella.
To me cyclists are entertainers first and foremost. I don't feel the urge to pin these people up as some sort of role-models for life. Cycling and cyclists aren't that big a deal to me. So I don't have the same agonising inner turmoil when someone is tainted by mud in what is (to me) more akin to a uprooted pig's enclosure than a level playing field.
The only people I have serious issues with are those that are setting the rules and are in charge of patrolling them. They hold the real key. Then it is a sliding scale to those that have to puzzle out a way to navigate the field as they find it, the riders.
From the first "cheat positive", there have always been more people who are central to the sport and were/are doing exactly what the caught riders have done (or facilitated it) and kept quiet throughout the public flogging of others (or until they are were caught themselves). But we tend to spit on those that have found themselves in the spotlight. Personal attitudes in that spotlight will differ greatly. There are reasonable justifications for most however.
I can understand those that want life bans, I can understand those that want cheats in the sin bin for life. I would prefer to see clean cycling too.
But where we are right now, I can only conclude that I am less inclined to "crucify" those that are trying to make a living out of hopping aboard a rusting train wreck than you are. I think we both want to see a clean and fair sport. I guess we both differ on what route is most likely to get us there.
For me, I am less keen to finger the riders as the cheats and bad guys. As a pro-cyclist (especially a few years back), they had a tough choice with real-life consequences to make. And since to me cycling isn't that "heroic" a deal, I can just about understand it when those that have to face the decision don't always end up in the "heroic" corner.
I want to see those that keep the thing cleanly on the rails nailed to a cross. It is their only job, they are directly responsible for the health and safety of others. They put others before stacked and unfair decisions. The riders that "dip into dope" to various degrees are guilty, but arguably victims too.
ingsve said:
It's probably usually premeditated, I wouldn't put it past some teams to have turned riders into cheats against their knowledge too. But talking about those that do make the decision (the vast majority of cheats I think):
For starters: I don't like it. I wanna be very clear about that.
For seconds: I do admire those that step away from it because it's a hurdle they are unwilling to jump, even if that means giving up on a source of income to feed your family with. there are people not involved with cycling because cycling as it is not the level playing field you can compete on "fairly".
The circumstance under which I can understand it: if cheating has become so institutionalised (including collusion with those that ought to stamp it out), that without going the same route, you won't be able to participate (either by not getting the places that you would have gotten in the hypothetical clean version, or because you simply would be considered "too weak" to even be fielded), or you can't accept that the lucrative spoils you would otherwise (possibly) have a fair shot at are placed out of a strong arm's length.
It's not like riders can decide which version of pro-cycling they want to join. It hasn't been "a fair clean level fight" for ages. You are in or out. Clean or tainted. With all the consequences that come with it.
And to all but the lucky few, sport is a source of income, not a "greater good". It's ok for us to mythologise it all, but there are people on the road with a couple of years in their legs that will have to pay for hospital bills, a house, school for kids, etc. Risking serious injury. Who see people around them getting away with it, making their own job nigh impossible, and putting their only source of income at risk to boot.
I agree. But I wasn't the one who claimed that murder would preclude someone from being someone people would ever vote for.
Can we just start from a base where you don't start with defining what is most important for me or others? I can predict with great confidence that we disagree about something fundamental to the rest of the discussion, especially if you don't even bother to define "harm". What harm? Harm to whom? By whom? Most important compared to what?
Ah, I think we are getting somewhere. "Treating them as heroes". The thing is, I don't treat them as "heroes". Why should I? You are making an assumption about my attitude that is false. If your base assumption is false, your conclusion might warrant a second look.
I find it hard to see any of these sports folk as "heroes", for the simple reason that "heroic deeds" fall in a totally different class of activities and decisions to me. Riding two wheels up a hill for personal gain, not so much. Deciding to step into a situation at a potential cost to yourself for the benefit of others, that's the fella.
To me cyclists are entertainers first and foremost. I don't feel the urge to pin these people up as some sort of role-models for life. Cycling and cyclists aren't that big a deal to me. So I don't have the same agonising inner turmoil when someone is tainted by mud in what is (to me) more akin to a uprooted pig's enclosure than a level playing field.
The only people I have serious issues with are those that are setting the rules and are in charge of patrolling them. They hold the real key. Then it is a sliding scale to those that have to puzzle out a way to navigate the field as they find it, the riders.
From the first "cheat positive", there have always been more people who are central to the sport and were/are doing exactly what the caught riders have done (or facilitated it) and kept quiet throughout the public flogging of others (or until they are were caught themselves). But we tend to spit on those that have found themselves in the spotlight. Personal attitudes in that spotlight will differ greatly. There are reasonable justifications for most however.
I can understand those that want life bans, I can understand those that want cheats in the sin bin for life. I would prefer to see clean cycling too.
But where we are right now, I can only conclude that I am less inclined to "crucify" those that are trying to make a living out of hopping aboard a rusting train wreck than you are. I think we both want to see a clean and fair sport. I guess we both differ on what route is most likely to get us there.
For me, I am less keen to finger the riders as the cheats and bad guys. As a pro-cyclist (especially a few years back), they had a tough choice with real-life consequences to make. And since to me cycling isn't that "heroic" a deal, I can just about understand it when those that have to face the decision don't always end up in the "heroic" corner.
I want to see those that keep the thing cleanly on the rails nailed to a cross. It is their only job, they are directly responsible for the health and safety of others. They put others before stacked and unfair decisions. The riders that "dip into dope" to various degrees are guilty, but arguably victims too.
This will also be my last post in this exchange.
If we concentrate on the situation you mention where doping is systematic and people still need to make a living then I still feel that the best action by all would be to break that culture rather than encourage it. I don't believe in "every man for himself" types of solutions and instead support actions that can make things better for everyone and in this case that involves full frontal attack on cheating from everyone including fans.
We all have our own values and the age old struggle is to convince others that our own morals are superior. That's the essence of ethics, either I convince you or you convince me.
I wasn't talking about you specifically but some types of fans in general and a lot of people do treat riders as if they were heroes. Basso during the giro is a clear example. I don't mean that anyone is a hero that's not the point. The point is that they are treated in a way that people treat people who are heroes.
I think this is our main disagreement. I feel that while a problem still persists we can't afford to simultaneously try to help the problem while acting in ways that make it harder to solve the problem.
If we concentrate on the situation you mention where doping is systematic and people still need to make a living then I still feel that the best action by all would be to break that culture rather than encourage it. I don't believe in "every man for himself" types of solutions and instead support actions that can make things better for everyone and in this case that involves full frontal attack on cheating from everyone including fans.
Francois the Postman said:
We all have our own values and the age old struggle is to convince others that our own morals are superior. That's the essence of ethics, either I convince you or you convince me.
Francois the Postman said:
I wasn't talking about you specifically but some types of fans in general and a lot of people do treat riders as if they were heroes. Basso during the giro is a clear example. I don't mean that anyone is a hero that's not the point. The point is that they are treated in a way that people treat people who are heroes.
Francois the Postman said:
I think this is our main disagreement. I feel that while a problem still persists we can't afford to simultaneously try to help the problem while acting in ways that make it harder to solve the problem.
mowie133 said:
Do you also think Basso and David Miller should´t be in the Tour? What about Levi, caught doping while a neo pro? Do the crime, pay the fine. Don´t complain about Vino. Complain to the UCI for longer bans or better yet, treat all cyclists equal. Won´t happen though. If you think Vino was or is one of the only dopers, think again. It´s a beautiful sport, but it´s dirty from the bottom to the top. Still love it.
Moose McKnuckles said:
bb wishes he owns me,in my society bb would be in a mental home
anyway... cycling is trying to get rid of the drug culture an having this dope head in the tour ain't helping....plus it's just just not as simple to say he has served his time!!! once a cheat always a cheat!!!Tangled Tango said:
oh don't get me wrong i no it's dirty all over,how many big tours did vino miss? didn't he come stright back into the big 3 stage races from his ban??
maybe the uci should black ban them from tour de france for 5 years, basso has had 4 years from the tdf still it's just as bad
.. the problem is the press, they make it sound like there all on drugs cose of a few (basso an vino) are in the tour..mowie133 said:oh don't get me wrong i no it's dirty all over,how many big tours did vino miss? didn't he come stright back into the big 3 stage races from his ban??
maybe the uci should black ban them from tour de france for 5 years, basso has had 4 years from the tdf still it's just as bad
Do U think or "no" that Vino is now clean? Your answer will possibly give you clearance to go "stright back" to the mental home.
By the way...if Vino had stopped that close to the finish to give Contador his bike they both would have lost even more time. He looked like he had his head down and didn't know Contador had dropped off.
mowie133 said:who cares!! damage is done.. keep my bed warm in the mental home ok
Many care, particularly those that have actually raced against some of these heroes or want the unfluence on future generations to be real.
Francois the Postman said:
That is a great quote. One that so sums up my feelings perfectly and motivated me to finally register to comment. I will say as others have done that Vino is the most exciting racer of the last decade. Not the most successful, but the most fun to watch.
You are right because most of the other contenders are so clean.mowie133 said:
Out of curiosity, which ones are your favorite riders (If you have any)?
Only clean ones please. Thanks.
Escarabajo said:You are right because most of the other contenders are so clean.
Out of curiosity, which ones are your favorite riders (If you have any)?
Only clean ones please. Thanks.
gerrans...lancaster
honest riders
Good luck.mowie133 said:gerrans...lancaster
Can not say much about these riders but at this time I can not trust many riders.
It is a sad reality.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 24K
-
Tour Down Under 2025 - Men's (Jan. 21-26)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 328
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram