What is up with this Philosophy?

[Clemson Cycling]

Of accusing (or raising questions) about everyone who does well as being a doper. Whether it is Contador, or the Schlecks, or Armstrong, or Wiggins. This is getting ridiculous. People saying they will lose respect for riders if they join new teams or lose respect for certain teams if they sign certain riders? I mean I am an American, so I might have a different mind set the some others on this forum, but I believe a person is innocent and shouldn't be accused of a crime until there is evidence. I pat Contador on the back for refusing to answer any questions about his possible doping because there is nothing to defend, no reason to acknowledge something that lowlifes like Lemond feel like spewing out of their mouths.

 

[workingclasshero]

well fook me

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Should be in The Clinic I guess.

The thing is that doping in cycling have been proved to have been massive and it made quite a fuss.

If you look at the podiums from the Armstrong years, they have -IIRC- all (including Armstrong, but many disagree on that) been linked to doping. Then 2006 winner is no longer cause he doped. Then 2007 MJ pressured out of the race out of strong doping suspisions. And all the others.
Festina in 98 was a major team as well. By major I mean contending for the win and the team ranking.

So we learned that doping was prevalent and that most of the top dogs have compromised themselves. That doping was running amok before 98 and that despite the Festina scandal, it was still very common for the next decade. Many riders claiming they rode clean were proven liars.

How is it possible to not be suspicious after that?

 

[RhodriM]

The longer I follow cycling, the more cynical I become. And some people on here have been following cycling a long time, and have had their trust abused.

I would always go for 'innocent until proven guilty' over 'no smoke without fire', but unfortunately in cycling the latter phrase is perhaps true more often than in other sports.

Rumours and circumstantial evidence are of course no reason to condemn every rider, but I can't blame people for feeling deflated when, for example, they find out a pro they admire has been working with certain doctors, even if they haven't tested positive.

 

[scribe]

It is best to put the onus on the officials for development very tight doping controls. Hear-say, peloton finger pointing, raised suspicions, all contribute to paranoia and assassination from within the sport. Tighter controls with multiple entities overseeing the process is the only way to clean the sport up.

 

[md2020]

Of accusing (or raising questions) about everyone who does well as being a doper. Whether it is Contador, or the Schlecks, or Armstrong, or Wiggins. This is getting ridiculous. People saying they will lose respect for riders if they join new teams or lose respect for certain teams if they sign certain riders? I mean I am an American, so I might have a different mind set the some others on this forum, but I believe a person is innocent and shouldn't be accused of a crime until there is evidence. I pat Contador on the back for refusing to answer any questions about his possible doping because there is nothing to defend, no reason to acknowledge something that lowlifes like Lemond feel like spewing out of their mouths.

It's being realistic.

Even if you haven't been a fan for long you should be skeptical based on just the past few years. Starting with Landis in 2006 and continuing with Rasmussen, Ricco, Sella, Rebellin, and most recently DiLuca you'll see that rides that seemed "epic" at the time were a result of PEDs. It's the old "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me."

BTW, this should be in "The Clinic"

 

[the big ring]

It's kinda like the ($34k p.a.) policeman driving the Porsche Carerra around, having home cinema nights with his buddies in the home theatre extension he built, while putting 3 kids through college, checking the time on his genuine Rolex...

You're happy for him, and maybe a bit jealous, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

 

[usedtobefast]

it really is Darwinian if you ask me. "survival of the fittest" very basic human
behavior . all the dogma goes away at 180bpm.

 

[BroDeal]

Of accusing (or raising questions) about everyone who does well as being a doper. Whether it is Contador, or the Schlecks, or Armstrong, or Wiggins. This is getting ridiculous. People saying they will lose respect for riders if they join new teams or lose respect for certain teams if they sign certain riders? I mean I am an American, so I might have a different mind set the some others on this forum, but I believe a person is innocent and shouldn't be accused of a crime until there is evidence. I pat Contador on the back for refusing to answer any questions about his possible doping because there is nothing to defend, no reason to acknowledge something that lowlifes like Lemond feel like spewing out of their mouths.

Definitely should be in The Clinic.

We did this a couple of months ago but if you list all the podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1995 to 2005, about 80% of them have been shown to have doped. That figure includes everything from riders failing official tests to Armstrong being shown to have used EPO in retrospective testing to Kloden linked to the University of Freiburg's doping operation to riders caught up in Operation Puerto, etc. Doping gives large and very real performance advantages. Using common sense, the few that have not been shown to have doped were undoubtedly doing the same thing the others were. We have a situation where it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who does well in the TdF is probably doping.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. This is not a court of law. No one is going to prison. We, as rational beings, have the right to use our intelligence to look at the facts and come to conclusions. The evidence of massive, widespread doping in cycling is so strong that to ignore it does not make you a high minded example of justice. It makes you a chump.

 

[Anonymous]

Definitely should be in The Clinic.

We did this a couple of months ago but if you list all the podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1995 to 2005, about 80% of them have been shown to have doped. That figure includes everything from riders failing official tests to Armstrong being shown to have used EPO in retrospective testing to Kloden linked to the University of Freiburg's doping operation to riders caught up in Operation Puerto, etc. Doping gives large and very real performance advantages. Using common sense, the few that have not been shown to have doped were undoubtedly doing the same thing the others were. We have a situation where it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who does well in the TdF is probably doping.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. This is not a court of law. No one is going to prison. We, as rational beings, have the right to use our intelligence to look at the facts and come to conclusions. The evidence of massive, widespread doping in cycling is so strong that to ignore it does not make you a high minded example of justice. It makes you a chump.

Maybe in a few years, someone will talk Mr Armstrong into pulling and OJ and writing a book titled "If I did dope, this is how I did it." I'll bet Andy can get his hands on the manuscript if he signs with Radiotrailer.

Note to moderators, you have left this thread in this section, so don't hit me with a doping violation because I didn't start the thread.

 

[frizzlefry]

Maybe in a few years, someone will talk Mr Armstrong into pulling and OJ and writing a book titled "If I did dope, this is how I did it." I'll bet Andy can get his hands on the manuscript if he signs with Radiotrailer.

Note to moderators, you have left this thread in this section, so don't hit me with a doping violation because I didn't start the thread.

How do you tell how many infractions you got?

 

[Anonymous]

How do you tell how many infractions you got?

I am pretty sure I am the only one who has gotten any. They send you an email. I got a 10 point doping violation a couple of days ago for a post that had nothing to do with doping. I don't know why they don't stop the whole dog and pony show and just ban me? Its funny, there is a little red square on at the bottom right of that post that signifies the infraction. I've got a total of 26 points, whatever that means.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am pretty sure I am the only one who has gotten any. They send you an email. I got a 10 point doping violation a couple of days ago for a post that had nothing to do with doping. I don't know why they don't stop the whole dog and pony show and just ban me? Its funny, there is a little red square on at the bottom right of that post that signifies the infraction. I've got a total of 26 points, whatever that means.

26, tuttut....You have to learn to micropost!

 

[Anonymous]

26, tuttut....You have to learn to micropost!

you mean like this?

 

[ilillillli]

you mean like this?

slow claps.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of accusing (or raising questions) about everyone who does well as being a doper. Whether it is Contador, or the Schlecks, or Armstrong, or Wiggins. This is getting ridiculous. People saying they will lose respect for riders if they join new teams or lose respect for certain teams if they sign certain riders? I mean I am an American, so I might have a different mind set the some others on this forum, but I believe a person is innocent and shouldn't be accused of a crime until there is evidence. I pat Contador on the back for refusing to answer any questions about his possible doping because there is nothing to defend, no reason to acknowledge something that lowlifes like Lemond feel like spewing out of their mouths.

I will steer this away from the D word -as I don't think that was your original intention.

Ultimately - this is a forum where information is shared, we all look at this info and deduce whether it is relevant or not. It is not a court of law so we form opinions not give rulings.
People can make an informed opinion - on whether they have suspicions about a rider or a team or indeed if someone should have attacked or not.

Lemond is right to question -particularly if he feel something is suspicious, without questioning and seeking information than all you will have is ignorance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you mean like this?

Some here might say that is even too high! ...but I like!

 

[Bala Verde]

I am pretty sure I am the only one who has gotten any. They send you an email. I got a 10 point doping violation a couple of days ago for a post that had nothing to do with doping. I don't know why they don't stop the whole dog and pony show and just ban me? Its funny, there is a little red square on at the bottom right of that post that signifies the infraction. I've got a total of 26 points, whatever that means.

sorry for the OT

I got one worth a whopping 1 (!) point because I posted an article in its entirety.

Reason: Inappropriate Language
-------
Please do not re-post stories from sources in full. Always post a link, and if necessary include a snippet of the story.
Thank you.

I guess the automated email wasn't designed to deal with 'quoting' infractions...

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am pretty sure I am the only one who has gotten any. They send you an email. I got a 10 point doping violation a couple of days ago for a post that had nothing to do with doping. I don't know why they don't stop the whole dog and pony show and just ban me? Its funny, there is a little red square on at the bottom right of that post that signifies the infraction. I've got a total of 26 points, whatever that means.

When you get 100 they send someone around to cut off your fingers. I got one for my name, I have no idea why.

 

[Anonymous]

When you get 100 they send someone around to cut off your fingers. I got one for my name, I have no idea why.

Everybody's got to have a goal...and my mom said I'd never amount to anything...100 here I come!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Everybody's got to have a goal...and my mom said I'd never amount to anything...100 here I come!

You can do it!

 

[Digger]

I pat Contador on the back for refusing to answer any questions about his possible doping because there is nothing to defend, no reason to acknowledge something that lowlifes like Lemond feel like spewing out of their mouths.

His initials are in the files of the biggest doping doctor, or one of them, over the past twenty years. The drugs he took: insulin, HMG-Lepori, a hormone to stimulate the secretion of testosterone and also a product for asthma called TGN. AC has never been chased after by his own Cycling federation because they want their own cyclists doing well, and they are corrupt. Just look at Valverde. His name was clearly in the files. His own fed said there was no evidence, and it took the Italians to take a DNA sample to prove that yes indeed his blood was at the doctor's office for some reason. It took three years for any sort of ban to come about for him. And his own fed are still not willing to ban him. So get your facts straight when you say he has nothing to defend. He has also refused to get a DNA sample to show his blood was in the surgery. And you call Lemond the lowlife....

 

[BigBoat]

Definitely should be in The Clinic.

We did this a couple of months ago but if you list all the podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1995 to 2005, about 80% of them have been shown to have doped. That figure includes everything from riders failing official tests to Armstrong being shown to have used EPO in retrospective testing to Kloden linked to the University of Freiburg's doping operation to riders caught up in Operation Puerto, etc. Doping gives large and very real performance advantages. Using common sense, the few that have not been shown to have doped were undoubtedly doing the same thing the others were. We have a situation where it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who does well in the TdF is probably doping.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. This is not a court of law. No one is going to prison. We, as rational beings, have the right to use our intelligence to look at the facts and come to conclusions. The evidence of massive, widespread doping in cycling is so strong that to ignore it does not make you a high minded example of justice. It makes you a chump.

In my "opinion" again, in a court of law Lance & others doped. Ferrari was procecuted and found GUILTY in a court of law. He was Lance's doctor for F-sakes. Lance's frozen urine from 99' had epo in it. The little catheder you'd use to spike the urine samples would have to be 1/10000 the size of a pin head. Its impossible to spike urine samples with epo. Lance's agent from Oakley sunglasses, Stephanie admitted Lance admitted he used epo, cortizone, HGH, steroids in his hospital room to his doctors. Patient confidentiality is one thing, but multiple witnesses is another. Lance admitted multiple times to using epo. Greg Lemond certainly thinks Lance doped. That sports conference in the UK all thing lance doped. David Walsh thinks so. Linus Gerdemann thinks so, Kristin armstrong thinks so, Frankie Andreau thinks so, the Andreaus think so, you & I think so. The evidence and surveys suggest that 85% of cycling fans believe Lance Armstrong was and is a doper. Yet he is not given a ban or surved any kind of penalty whatsoever. Ivan Basso served 2 years. Valverde is getting banned. Ullrich was forced to retire. Hamilton is banned for 8 years. How does Lance Pharmstrong continue racing?

 

[Krebs cycle]

In my "opinion" again, in a court of law Lance & others doped. Ferrari was procecuted and found GUILTY in a court of law. He was Lance's doctor for F-sakes. Lance's frozen urine from 99' had epo in it. The little catheder you'd use to spike the urine samples would have to be 1/10000 the size of a pin head. Its impossible to spike urine samples with epo. Lance's agent from Oakley sunglasses, Stephanie admitted Lance admitted he used epo, cortizone, HGH, steroids in his hospital room to his doctors. Patient confidentiality is one thing, but multiple witnesses is another. Lance admitted multiple times to using epo. Greg Lemond certainly thinks Lance doped. That sports conference in the UK all thing lance doped. David Walsh thinks so. Linus Gerdemann thinks so, Kristin armstrong thinks so, Frankie Andreau thinks so, the Andreaus think so, you & I think so. The evidence and surveys suggest that 85% of cycling fans believe Lance Armstrong was and is a doper. Yet he is not given a ban or surved any kind of penalty whatsoever. Ivan Basso served 2 years. Valverde is getting banned. Ullrich was forced to retire. Hamilton is banned for 8 years. How does Lance Pharmstrong continue racing?

The Lance fans cannot handle the truth which is that at the end of the line it is the UCI and IOC whom are so afraid of a massive scandal that they cannot allow it to happen. If Lance is proven guilty and the results released to the world, a lot of big wig heads will roll.

Something interesting that is little known is that whilst nobody tested positive to the EPO "on" model at the Sydney 2000 Olympics, 8 samples tested positive to the "off" model which is actually more sensitive (ie: lower probability of a false positive) than the on model. But of course these results never saw the light of day in the media because the test was not sanctioned by the IOC. It would have been the biggest doping scandal in Olympic history. Can't have that now can they?

I went through all those nasty bum jabs for nothing

 

[SpeedWay]

no reason to acknowledge something that lowlifes like Lemond feel like spewing out of their mouths.

Lemond may not have approached it the right way or have the accredited background to make such statements, but his insights were spot on.