What will it take?

[blackcat]

Several times, the question "What will it take for you to believe cycling is clean?" has been asked here. Usually, the person asking the question is some forum member making his first post, who eventually slips into the same old "Why do you haters even watch cycling?" BS. Well, that question never need be asked to me again.

Today I figured out my answser: The day teams start busting their riders and turning them into their federations.

when they legalise doping and redefine clean

 

[Taxus4a]

Several times, the question "What will it take for you to believe cycling is clean?" has been asked here. Usually, the person asking the question is some forum member making his first post, who eventually slips into the same old "Why do you haters even watch cycling?" BS. Well, that question never need be asked to me again.

Today I figured out my answser: The day teams start busting their riders and turning them into their federations.

Very good question, tomorrow I will see all the answer.

But for my experience, this kind of haters dont take time in evidences, they say one day: Froome is one day man, no more, or, SKY will be finished after 2012 olimpic year, and then they have another excuse if things dont go as they said.

They will believe if a day SKY, or just Froome and Wiggins are not top cyclist. It doesnt matter other things, Lemond could be president of UCI, antidoping could be out of UCI, but they dont believe if that dont happen.

And the coming years, with the president of British federation in front the UCI, and Froome winning Tours, things are not going to change for haters.

I have my doubts with some of them, maybe they see now that Rogers can be up in Dauphine without SKy, that Nordaugh can be better in Liege than all his ex team mates of SKY, and if Rigo change team and it is the same... maybe some of them change a little his mind.

But they will need to see Froome or Wiggins at least out of SKY, and is the only British Team, and the team that better pay, so, why to leave? Just for that haters? I ll do it just to show them, but...

They work ok, they have new methods, they have good professionals, all the facilities, so, it would be always the best team to stay, and the best team to performance,...s but haters dont like it, and just for that they talk day by day about SKY and clinic, a team that invite to journalist David Walsh to have unlimited access.

That is not enough for them to have a doubt.

And I dont ask to believe, just to think: ou, we could be right, but we could be wrong. No, they just think they are right, period.

 

[ElChingon]

wrong thread joachim.

Sshhh.... at least give him a day!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Several times, the question "What will it take for you to believe cycling is clean?" has been asked here. Usually, the person asking the question is some forum member making his first post, who eventually slips into the same old "Why do you haters even watch cycling?" BS. Well, that question never need be asked to me again.

Today I figured out my answser: The day teams start busting their riders and turning them into their federations.

I saw you posted this on twitter earlier and at first nodded in agreement but then I started to remember how the sport is run.

Firstly, as a student of law I am sure it would interest you that Gusev won his case for wrongful dismissal when the anti-doping crusader Bruyneel sacked him for irregular blood profile.
There is no incentive for teams to do so, and even if one or two did the dopers would just go to one of the many charger teams.

But to answer the question:
When an independent, pro active and well funded anti-doping authority is allowed to do its work could as a start help introduce some credibility.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Where is the evidence that Sky are doping? Who is running it? Why no witnesses or rumors?

We've gone back to the days when the team with the biggest check book dominates the race. This is normal.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Very good question, tomorrow I will see all the answer.

But for my experience, this kind of haters dont take time in evidences, they say one day: Froome is one day man, no more, or, SKY will be finished after 2012 olimpic year, and then they have another excuse if things dont go as they said.

They will believe if a day SKY, or just Froome and Wiggins are not top cyclist. It doesnt matter other things, Lemond could be president of UCI, antidoping could be out of UCI, but they dont believe if that dont happen.

And the coming years, with the president of British federation in front the UCI, and Froome winning Tours, things are not going to change for haters.

I have my doubts with some of them, maybe they see now that Rogers can be up in Dauphine without SKy, that Nordaugh can be better in Liege than all his ex team mates of SKY, and if Rigo change team and it is the same... maybe some of them change a little his mind.

But they will need to see Froome or Wiggins at least out of SKY, and is the only British Team, and the team that better pay, so, why to leave? Just for that haters? I ll do it just to show them, but...

They work ok, they have new methods, they have good professionals, all the facilities, so, it would be always the best team to stay, and the best team to performance,...s but haters dont like it, and just for that they talk day by day about SKY and clinic, a team that invite to journalist David Walsh to have unlimited access.

That is not enough for them to have a doubt.

And I dont ask to believe, just to think: ou, we could be right, but we could be wrong. No, they just think they are right, period.

Speak English or die.

 

[Zero Tolerance]

"Please go to funkyjunk to view this image"

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I saw you posted this on twitter earlier and at first nodded in agreement but then I started to remember how the sport is run.

Firstly, as a student of law I am sure it would interest you that Gusev won his case for wrongful dismissal when the anti-doping crusader Bruyneel sacked him for irregular blood profile.
There is no incentive for teams to do so, and even if one or two did the dopers would just go to one of the many charger teams.

But to answer the question:
When an independent, pro active and well funded anti-doping authority is allowed to do its work could as a start help introduce some credibility.

Wrong, a team that undertakes that kind of honesty and ethics would be supported by fans, and is thus a boost to sponsors. They'd never win, but that is a different topic. I came up with an answer. I am not polyannic enough to believe that it will happen. I was merely positing what would make me believe.

Your solution is fraught with as many problems, because surely you cannot believe there is the impetus for such an organization to exist anywhere in the world of sport.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

"Please go to funkyjunk to view this image"

 

[Zero Tolerance]

I saw you posted this on twitter earlier and at first nodded in agreement but then I started to remember how the sport is run.

Firstly, as a student of law I am sure it would interest you that Gusev won his case for wrongful dismissal when the anti-doping crusader Bruyneel sacked him for irregular blood profile.
There is no incentive for teams to do so, and even if one or two did the dopers would just go to one of the many charger teams.

But to answer the question:
When an independent, pro active and well funded anti-doping authority is allowed to do its work could as a start help introduce some credibility.

Its unrealistic to ever have 100% confidence in any sport. What is important is the LEVEL of confidence. What is your current level? Mine is 90%. When there is rumors about guys, those guys now get popped. The leading team has a zero tolerance policy. If you'd said five years ago that would happen, nobody would have believed you. Contracts on sky and other teams have draconian clauses where the rider gets sued if they are caught. There are no rumors or links to doctors amongst the current top riders. It's a healthy situation. The main arguments against McQuaid is one about the past and the PR of this as the sport goes forward, and that's a good point. But it's not a failure of the current system. Confidence is high.

 

[Zero Tolerance]

That's very funny, thank you for sharing it with forum users in this thread.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That's very funny, thank you for sharing it with forum users in this thread.

It's my thread, I'll hang a fern in this motherf**ker if I want. (cyclingforums powers activate!)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wrong, a team that undertakes that kind of honesty and ethics would be supported by fans, and is thus a boost to sponsors. They'd never win, but that is a different topic. I came up with an answer. I am not polyannic enough to believe that it will happen. I was merely positing what would make me believe.

I believe my hypothetical which won't happen, is waaaaay better than your hypothetical that wont happen.

C'mon Chewie, relax - save that for the newbies in July, this place is going to be hors category mental and you don't want to peak too soon.


But to address the above - when you said "a team", that's the point. It would be a team, not the sport.
And if you look at JV/Garmin as a quick example, they get slammed here heavily by a few vocal posters - who dismiss it as cynical PR.
Which leads us back to having no confidence in the overall system.

Your solution is fraught with as many problems, because surely you cannot believe there is the impetus for such an organization to exist anywhere in the world of sport.

I accept the above, no sport would actively choose that but it is coming to a point where cyclings credibility is so poor that the decision may be forced on them.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I believe my hypothetical which won't happen, is waaaaay better than your hypothetical that wont happen.

C'mon Chewie, relax - save that for the newbies in July, this place is going to be hors category mental and you don't want to peak too soon.


But to address the above - when you said "a team", that's the point. It would be a team, not the sport.
And if you look at JV/Garmin as a quick example, they get slammed here heavily by a few vocal posters - who dismiss it as cynical PR.
Which leads us back to having no confidence in the overall system.



I accept the above, no sport would actively choose that but it is coming to a point where cyclings credibility is so poor that the decision may be forced on them.

My overall answer was that most teams would do this. Again, it was my "perfect world" answer. I know it will never happen...thus I will never believe cycling is clean.

 

[Zero Tolerance]

My overall answer was that most teams would do this. Again, it was my "perfect world" answer. I know it will never happen...thus I will never believe cycling is clean.

The question then arises why you need 100% certainty to "believe" in a sport, and not be happy with a growing level of confidence instead?

The answers are related to our own personal psychologies and whether we're a glass half full guy etc.

 

[hiero2]

Dude, you gotta slip lines like that into the middle of paragraphs. You lost 93.5% of your audience with your first sentence.

Oh! HehahaHAHAHAHAHA, <cough, cough> HAHAHAHA, Hehehehe!

Oh, poop. Y'all know people think I am long-winded. So I have shared that mistake, often enough. Chewie, you called this one right.

But right now, I want to give all readers a warning. Chewie has posted a serious question, but one that is also a troll - in the good sense. Meaning he is seriously, imo, seeking conversation. But, engage at your own risk - chewie loves to use "wit" to reply, so this could get contentious. Let's all remember that chewie likes a verbally contentious environment, and keep it fun.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My overall answer was that most teams would do this. Again, it was my "perfect world" answer. I know it will never happen...thus I will never believe cycling is clean.

Well, there will always be dopers, it can never be clean - but I believe it can be cleaned up a lot.

And I actually am somewhat optimistic at the moment.
You know where the real problems are with this sport and some more good stuff should hit the fan in the next week.

 

[Taxus4a]

Its unrealistic to ever have 100% confidence in any sport. What is important is the LEVEL of confidence. What is your current level? Mine is 90%. When there is rumors about guys, those guys now get popped. The leading team has a zero tolerance policy. If you'd said five years ago that would happen, nobody would have believed you. Contracts on sky and other teams have draconian clauses where the rider gets sued if they are caught. There are no rumors or links to doctors amongst the current top riders. It's a healthy situation. The main arguments against McQuaid is one about the past and the PR of this as the sport goes forward, and that's a good point. But it's not a failure of the current system. Confidence is high.

For me is great to find people thinking that way. And there are some in this forum. I though thinks can t change once, it was to know some thinks for my own, that I started really beliving.

I am as well at 90 %, maybe more, but it is going to be always people trying something and there are new things, But there are more riders who like to be clean, if they were not is becouse others did, if they think he have a chance to win clean, even just to be pro, they will do. And now they feel that. But is not everybody, and cycling is a business, but they have difficult to do it now.

For me Zero tolerance of SKY is nice, is good, it is transparency but is not worthy for skeptics, and people who was inside doping know more of face doping than new people.

People more anti-tobacco are ex-smokers.
In cycling is not always that way, but in some cases it could be.

 

[Zero Tolerance]

For me is great to find people thinking that way. And there are some in this forum. I though thinks can t change once, it was to know some thinks for my own, that I started really beliving.

I am as well at 90 %, maybe more, but it is going to be always people trying something and there are new things, But there are more riders who like to be clean, if they were not is becouse others did, if they think he have a chance to win clean, even just to be pro, they will do. And now they feel that. But is not everybody, and cycling is a business, but they have difficult to do it now.

For me Zero tolerance of SKY is nice, is good, it is transparency but is not worthy for skeptics, and people who was inside doping know more of face doping than new people.

People more anti-tobacco are ex-smokers.
In cycling is not always that way, but in some cases it could be.

Thanks, there are some of us out here! We tend to get lost in the voices of woe.

The attitude from riders now is very different. They condemn doping and dopers in a much more personal way. Their denials of doping are sometimes more personal and less formulaic, like Wiggins droning on about his kids in 20 years time. All the main system flaws are about the past.

I think some people can get stuck in the past mindset and end up fighting the last war.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Oh! HehahaHAHAHAHAHA, <cough, cough> HAHAHAHA, Hehehehe!

Oh, poop. Y'all know people think I am long-winded. So I have shared that mistake, often enough. Chewie, you called this one right.

But right now, I want to give all readers a warning. Chewie has posted a serious question, but one that is also a troll - in the good sense. Meaning he is seriously, imo, seeking conversation. But, engage at your own risk - chewie loves to use "wit" to reply, so this could get contentious. Let's all remember that chewie likes a verbally contentious environment, and keep it fun.

I really resent the quotation marks...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For me is great to find people thinking that way. And there are some in this forum. I though thinks can t change once, it was to know some thinks for my own, that I started really beliving.

I am as well at 90 %, maybe more, but it is going to be always people trying something and there are new things, But there are more riders who like to be clean, if they were not is becouse others did, if they think he have a chance to win clean, even just to be pro, they will do. And now they feel that. But is not everybody, and cycling is a business, but they have difficult to do it now.

For me Zero tolerance of SKY is nice, is good, it is transparency but is not worthy for skeptics, and people who was inside doping know more of face doping than new people.

People more anti-tobacco are ex-smokers.
In cycling is not always that way, but in some cases it could be.

Ich bin ein believer.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well, there will always be dopers, it can never be clean - but I believe it can be cleaned up a lot.

And I actually am somewhat optimistic at the moment.
You know where the real problems are with this sport and some more good stuff should hit the fan in the next week.

I hope, but I am not as optimistic. In the past week or so, we got a former doper everyone knew was a needle freak junkie of PED's and some donkey who a blind idiot could have spotted. Nibali's dominance will go unpunished.

 

[Zero Tolerance]

I hope, but I am not as optimistic. In the past week or so, we got a former doper everyone knew was a needle freak junkie of PED's and some donkey who a blind idiot could have spotted. Nibali's dominance will go unpunished.

Good article on Nibali on velonews last week. Starts off negative and then comes through to make a good defense.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...win-represents-quandary-of-new-cycling_289152

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I hope, but I am not as optimistic. In the past week or so, we got a former doper everyone knew was a needle freak junkie of PED's and some donkey who a blind idiot could have spotted. Nibali's dominance will go unpunished.

They are just the 'addicts' - to quote Lester Freamon

"You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f**k it's gonna take you."

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The question then arises why you need 100% certainty to "believe" in a sport, and not be happy with a growing level of confidence instead?

The answers are related to our own personal psychologies and whether we're a glass half full guy etc.