What would it take?

[Chuffy]

Following on from the Clinic Attitude thread and comments on there about burning the sport down to the ground to start afresh I'd like to ask people one question:

What would it take for you to be convinced that cycling was clean?

Could you also include your own position instead of just posing the question?

To be honest I'm not sure I have one. I'm more interested in understanding at what point people on here (especially the hardcore cynics) would say 'job done'.

Basically - what would convince people that the war on doping has been won?

Would a long run with no positives be considered as proof that cycling was clean? Would the removal of people like McQuaid persuade you? If the UCI hived off drug testing to, say, WADA, would that make you think that it was a clean sport?

I guess my point is that if people have reached a point where they don't believe anything they're told and have settled on nihilistic cynicism as a default position, is it possible that they can reclaim a degree of faith?

 

[Barrus]

Could you also include your own position instead of just posing the question?

 

[Barrus]

Nah, I won't can the thread, but I will merge your two thread as it gives a lot more info and a lot more insight into what kind of thread it is

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To be honest I'm not sure I have one. I'm more interested in understanding at what point people on here (especially the hardcore cynics) would say 'job done'.

Basically - what would convince people that the war on doping has been won?

Would a long run with no positives be considered as proof that cycling was clean? Would the removal of people like McQuaid persuade you? If the UCI hived off drug testing to, say, WADA, would that make you think that it was a clean sport?

I guess my point is that if people have reached a point where they don't believe anything they're told and have settled on nihilistic cynicism as a default position, is it possible that they can reclaim a degree of faith?

I think it's a valid question but if you disagree, feel free to can the thread.

Ok - the overall question is valid, but you have included some strawman arguments which makes it difficult to answer.

Very few posters here advocate "burning it to the ground" or believe that there is a "war on doping" (to borrow a line from The Wire, "wars end") or that cycling can be "clean", let alone prove it.


However - if you were asking what would be necessary to restore credibility then in short, anti-doping to be done independently of the UCI or any of the teams and that body to actively work with other agencies (WADA, State, Police etc) which rarely happens now.

 

[patricknd]

any solution involving attractive nude/semi nude women would be a good start. i always trust them.

 

[Chuffy]

Ok - the overall question is valid, but you have included some strawman arguments which makes it difficult to answer.

Very few posters here advocate "burning it to the ground" or believe that there is a "war on doping" (to borrow a line from The Wire, "wars end") or that cycling can be "clean", let alone prove it.

Burning it down is an extreme position, but it's one I have heard on here - I'm not necessarily setting up an argument in opposition, I'm just quoting it. As for the 'war on....' thing, well if there isn't a war on doping, why are we here? Sure, it's not a great phrase and has unfortunate associations with the wildly successful 'war on terror/drugs' but nevertheless I don't think you can deny it exists.

However - if you were asking what would be necessary to restore credibility then in short, anti-doping to be done independently of the UCI or any of the teams and that body to actively work with other agencies (WADA, State, Police etc) which rarely happens now.

That's not quite what I'm getting at. If I was it would have been a darn sight easier to phrase the OP.


Ok, say WADA had full control over dope testing all three GTs. They fry one minor fish because he's overdone the asthma inhaler. Would you be happy to sign those GTs off as clean?

 

[Race Radio]

Very few people want to "Burn cycling down"

Adam Myerson wrote a good post about Floyd that included these words. Most understood the sentiment but did not feel that a complete destruction of the sport.

I think some are being overly dramatic and trying to paint anyone who participates in the clinic as hater who wants to kill the sport.....a common Armstrong talking point

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Burning it down is an extreme position, but it's one I have heard on here - I'm not necessarily setting up an argument in opposition, I'm just quoting it. As for the 'war on....' thing, well if there isn't a war on doping, why are we here? Sure, it's not a great phrase and has unfortunate associations with the wildly successful 'war on terror/drugs' but nevertheless I don't think you can deny it exists.

"Burning down" is just a statement of frustration, not a solution.

"War on doping" - I not only can, but do deny it exists, on 2 points.
1. A "war" insinuates that there is a way to overwhelm and take on an opposing force - there isn't. More testers or more testing or better tests alone would not work.

2. More importantly, there has never been a proper co-ordinated ("war") effort in the enforcement of the existing rules. I have often heard that the 'war' is being lost - of course it will, as it has never been tackled properly.

There has never been nor will be a 'war on doping'.

That's not quite what I'm getting at. If I was it would have been a darn sight easier to phrase the OP.


Ok, say WADA had full control over dope testing all three GTs. They fry one minor fish because he's overdone the asthma inhaler. Would you be happy to sign those GTs off as clean?

Again - thats a strawman.
No positives does not mean clean - nor is there any way to suggest any race is clean. The only thing anti-doping authorities can ensure is that full rigorous proper testing is in place and that it is extremely difficult to dope. There will always be risk takers, but by upholding proper standards there would be a proper deterrent not to take PEDs and for clean athletes to compete.

To answer the blue - In 2008 the AFLD did the Tour,using suprise and specific testing on suspicious riders and introducing a new test without tipping off the riders. They busted 6 riders.
In 2009 it went back to the lazy and lax attiude of the UCI and no-one was caught.

 

[andy1234]

Very few people want to "Burn cycling down"

Adam Myerson wrote a good post about Floyd that included these words. Most understood the sentiment but did not feel that a complete destruction of the sport.

I think some are being overly dramatic and trying to paint anyone who participates in the clinic as hater who wants to kill the sport.....a common Armstrong talking point

This Isn't an LA issue, and you didnt answer the OP's question.

For what its worth, there are many posters in the clinic who are respectfull of the sport, but discuss valid points about its problems.
Then there are those that have NOTHING good to say about it, never defend it, and join in on every negative point that is made.

Where is the love there?

So if the root of the discontent is drugs, and you believe that the problem can be fixed, when would the tide turn to support instead of disbelief?

 

[Chuffy]

"Burning down" is just a statement of frustration, not a solution.

Look, just forget I said it. It's just something that triggered my chain of thought, ok?

"War on doping" - I not only can, but do deny it exists, on 2 points.
<snip> There has never been nor will be a 'war on doping'.

So no-one is fighting doping? You're splitting hairs here and getting hung up on semantics.

Again - thats a strawman.

No. A strawman would be an assumed position that I can demolish with my argument. All I'm trying to do is tease out what would satisfy you.

No positives does not mean clean - nor is there any way to suggest any race is clean. The only thing anti-doping authorities can ensure is that full rigorous proper testing is in place and that it is extremely difficult to dope. There will always be risk takers, but by upholding proper standards there would be a proper deterrent not to take PEDs and for clean athletes to compete.

To answer the blue - In 2008 the AFLD did the Tour,using suprise and specific testing on suspicious riders and introducing a new test without tipping off the riders. They busted 6 riders.
In 2009 it went back to the lazy and lax attiude of the UCI and no-one was caught.

Right, so were you happy in 2008? Did that situation satisfy you? If the situation in the 2008 Tour pertained across all GTs and other major races, would that relieve the anger and frustration we see in the Clinic? Would the guys who refuse to accept anything that McQuaid says ('cycling cleaner than ever, blah blah etc') accept that actually things were better, if not perfect?

There are a lot of people in here who seem resigned to a miserable level of cynicism and disbelief. I want to know what their happy place looks like....

 

[Race Radio]

This Isn't an LA issue, and you didnt answer the OP's question.

For what its worth, there are many posters in the clinic who are respectfull of the sport, but discuss valid points about its problems.
Then there are those that have NOTHING good to say about it, never defend it, and join in on every negative point that is made.

Where is the love there?

So if the root of the discontent is drugs, and you believe that the problem can be fixed, when would the tide turn to support instead of disbelief?

I know that as soon as the season starts there are race related threads that are very active. From KBK/Het Volk on there are excellent race discussions that are very positive. I suggest you stick around.

I did not answer the question as I am not one of those guys who think everyone in the sport dopes. I believe the sport is much cleaner then many think but there are still dopers at the front end of the field

 

[andy1234]

.

"Burning down" is just a statement of frustration, not a solution.

Says who?
You interpret it how you like, and I will do the same. If it didn't originate from you, then you have no idea of the sentiment behind it.

"War on doping" - I not only can, but do deny it exists, on 2 points.
1. A "war" insinuates that there is a way to overwhelm and take on an opposing force - there isn't. More testers or more testing or better tests alone would not work.

2. More importantly, there has never been a proper co-ordinated ("war") effort in the enforcement of the existing rules. I have often heard that the 'war' is being lost - of course it will, as it has never been tackled properly.

There has never been nor will be a 'war on doping'.

Would you prefer, minor battle on doping? It still has little bearing on the original question.

Doc, it is obviously your forte to dissect an argument and force the other side of the conversation to debate each and every nuance of their statement.

The intended question is clear, how about answering it and restrain yourself from showing us how capable you are at diverting an argument?.
If you don't understand it, which I doubt, then just have a stab like everyone else does.

 

[andy1234]

I know that as soon as the season starts there are race related threads that are very active. From KBK/Het Volk on there are excellent race discussions that are very positive. I suggest you stick around.

I did not answer the question as I am not one of those guys who think everyone in the sport dopes. I believe the sport is much cleaner then many think but there are still dopers at the front end of the field

Nice to hear...
It doesn't happen that often.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Look, just forget I said it. It's just something that triggered my chain of thought, ok?


So no-one is fighting doping? You're splitting hairs here and getting hung up on semantics.


No. A strawman would be an assumed position that I can demolish with my argument. All I'm trying to do is tease out what would satisfy you.

As you say, a strawman is an assumed position- which you strayed in to by suggesting there is a "war" on doping and moreso by saying that the sport can ever be "clean".

If you want to know my opinion then just ask without suggesting assumptions.

You may think this is semantics - but I have seen it introduced in to debate to show that anti-doping does not/will not work.

Right, so were you happy in 2008? Did that situation satisfy you? If the situation in the 2008 Tour pertained across all GTs and other major races, would that relieve the anger and frustration we see in the Clinic? Would the guys who refuse to accept anything that McQuaid says ('cycling cleaner than ever, blah blah etc') accept that actually things were better, if not perfect?

There are a lot of people in here who seem resigned to a miserable level of cynicism and disbelief. I want to know what their happy place looks like....

The Tour 2008 was good.
I think a lot of the frustration within the cycling community is because of things like 2008 - at the time we were told there was better co-ordination of anti-doping, catching big names, chasing the 'men in black', new tests for substances, retro-testing, and the Bio Passport on the way.

But yet again things have lapsed and lots of the talk was hollow.

As for McQuaid - he should go because his position is compromised by corruption and conflict of interest.

 

[Chuffy]

I did not answer the question as I am not one of those guys who think everyone in the sport dopes. I believe the sport is much cleaner then many think but there are still dopers at the front end of the field

Nice to hear...
It doesn't happen that often.

+1 to both

I wonder what it would take for the nay-sayers to come round to that POV?

 

[Chuffy]

As you say, a strawman is an assumed position- which you strayed in to by suggesting there is a "war" on doping and moreso by saying that the sport can ever be "clean".

If you want to know my opinion then just ask without suggesting assumptions.

You may think this is semantics - but I have seen it introduced in to debate to show that anti-doping does not/will not work.

ARGH!! Doc, I like you, really, but your dogged hair splitting nit-pickery does drive me mad! I'm not making any assumptions about your personal position and I really have no idea what you're getting at in your last sentence.

Can we, that is you and I, accept that your happy place (for a given value of happy and not meaning a literal place in a physical sense) would be for the 2008 TdF situation to be repeated more widely, yes?

 

[BotanyBay]

Every time that I talk about side-stepping the UCI (and leaving them behind like an abusive alcoholic husband), people insert the words "burn cycling to the ground" into my mouth. And that's not what I have ever said.

People are so used to the horrible state of affairs, most of them have the Stockholm Syndrome. They see no other possible way of existing in life without their captor (Mr Pat McQuaid).

Dumping the UCI is not the end. It's the beginning. I can assure you of that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Says who?
You interpret it how you like, and I will do the same. If it didn't originate from you, then you have no idea of the sentiment behind it.

Actually I do - because when someone makes a remark like that I either challange them (if I don't know) or I look at the totality of their posts where they often suggest an alternative viewpoint.

I really don't see why there ia a problem in asking someone directly to clarify their post (either a question or viewpoint)

Would you prefer, minor battle on doping? It still has little bearing on the original question.

Doc, it is obviously your forte to dissect an argument and force the other side of the conversation to debate each and every nuance of their statement.

The intended question is clear, how about answering it and restrain yourself from showing us how capable you are at diverting an argument?.
If you don't understand it, which I doubt, then just have a stab like everyone else does.

The intended question was not clear - even RR said he did not comment on the OP because it did not represent his view.

The OP asked a (good and valid) question, but it had qualifiers in it that i do not agree with.

By rights the question should be answered by those who said "burn it down" - but as that is only a view held by a few it would have died and ignored a valid question.

 

[forty four]

Following on from the Clinic Attitude thread and comments on there about burning the sport down to the ground to start afresh I'd like to ask people one question:

What would it take for you to be convinced that cycling was clean?


To be honest I'm not sure I have one. I'm more interested in understanding at what point people on here (especially the hardcore cynics) would say 'job done'.

Basically - what would convince people that the war on doping has been won?

Would a long run with no positives be considered as proof that cycling was clean? Would the removal of people like McQuaid persuade you? If the UCI hived off drug testing to, say, WADA, would that make you think that it was a clean sport?

I guess my point is that if people have reached a point where they don't believe anything they're told and have settled on nihilistic cynicism as a default position, is it possible that they can reclaim a degree of faith?

what it will take is people having a realistic attitude towards top level sports particularly endurance there will always be drugs and cheaters and it will always ebb and flow based on new drugs and methods vs testing this will not change. no sport will ever be %100 clean and free of cheating ever this is reality. if this is unacceptable serious sport is not for you. the naivety on here abounds.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

ARGH!! Doc, I like you, really, but your dogged hair splitting nit-pickery does drive me mad! I'm not making any assumptions about your personal position and I really have no idea what you're getting at in your last sentence.

Can we, that is you and I, accept that your happy place (for a given value of happy and not meaning a literal place in a physical sense) would be for the 2008 TdF situation to be repeated more widely, yes?

As I said to 'Andy1234' - I could have left the thread die but "What will it take?" is a valid question.

No disrespect meant - I just don't see why I can't seek clarification or to agree/disagree with a particular point - same as if someone did not understand my position or question.

 

[Hugh Januss]

ARGH!! Doc, I like you, really, but your dogged hair splitting nit-pickery does drive me mad! I'm not making any assumptions about your personal position and I really have no idea what you're getting at in your last sentence.

Can we, that is you and I, accept that your happy place (for a given value of happy and not meaning a literal place in a physical sense) would be for the 2008 TdF situation to be repeated more widely, yes?

I think what the Doc is trying to point out is that the way you approached this is as if instead of asking "what color do you think the sky is?" you instead ask "what color is the sky, green, orange, or brown?"

Nobody wants to see the events of the 2008 TDF repeated over and over, but it is preferable to the 2009 tour with it's rumors of favoritism to certain riders and teams, officials talking loudly at the dinner table about where the next days tests would hit, coffee breaks outside the team bus and even samples taken but never tested.
In fact the events of 2008 would probably have to be repeated at least a few more times before the riders would acknowlege a shift in the risk benefit ratio large enough that they could again see the posibility of competing at the top level without doping.
I wish I could agree with Race Radio about less riders doping now but it seems to me that it is probably more along the lines of all riders doping less. Doping or as it is refered to in the bike racing world "proper preparation" is still I think as much a part of the sport as shorts having a chamois. Trying to win a GT without the right stuff in your blood is like trying to race the Indy 500 on 89 octane pump gas.
The EPO era was the game changer when it comes to doping, when it went from something that individual riders did to a vital and nescessary component of race preparation, and it is why now more than at any time in cycling history doping must be combated rather than swept under the carpet.
As a solution let's not talk about "burning down cycling" but rather about burning down the current power structure in the UCI.

 

[Chuffy]

I think what the Doc is trying to point out is that the way you approached this is as if instead of asking "what color do you think the sky is?" you instead ask "what color is the sky, green, orange, or brown?"

My actual question was more like "the sky should be blue, but it is currently green. If we can shift the colour of the sky, at what point is it blue enough to satisfy you?"

The 'what ifs?' were just some suggestions to get the ball rolling, they weren't intended as anything more.

To be honest I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked....

 

[Autobus]

My happy place is going for a great ride myself, not thinking about how messed up cycling is or what it will take to fix it. Because, as 44 states, it can't be:

what it will take is people having a realistic attitude towards top level sports particularly endurance there will always be drugs and cheaters and it will always ebb and flow based on new drugs and methods vs testing this will not change. no sport will ever be %100 clean and free of cheating ever this is reality. if this is unacceptable serious sport is not for you. the naivety on here abounds.

My problem is people get too wrapped up in sports. Football (both kinds), baseball, basketball, auto racing, ice skating, skiing, horse racing.... It all goes on and on. Cheating happens in all and most, if not all, have corrupt governing bodies. Why should cycling be any different? Enjoy cycling for the spectacle it is, but expecting it ever to pure and right and true populated with only boy scouts is to believe in fairy tales.

 

[DirtyWorks]

My actual question was more like "the sky should be blue, but it is currently green. If we can shift the colour of the sky, at what point is it blue enough to satisfy you?"

The 'what ifs?' were just some suggestions to get the ball rolling, they weren't intended as anything more.

To be honest I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked....

Please understand that the regulars with an anti-doping, UCI enabling the cheats position are used to regular incursions of new posts that use a similar attack in an effort to enable/approve of the UCI or specific personalities behavior. At least the attack is used to inject confusion into the anti-doping message.

If that wasn't your intention, then great. But the kind of dissection you object to is legitimate and important. A good life-skill too.

 

[Chuffy]

Please understand that the regulars with an anti-doping, UCI enabling the cheats position are used to regular incursions of new posts that use a similar attack in an effort to make the UCI and specific personalities look better, or to at least confuse the anti-doping message.

If that wasn't your intention, then great. But the kind of dissection you object to is legitimate and important. A good life-skill too.

What, seriously? I'm confused - I don't see how my OP came remotely close to that and it certainly wasn't my intention to attack anyone or anything.

I don't mind being asked to clarify what I mean (the OP was amended when Barrus asked me to do just that) but there are times when Dr M's forensic approach goes beyond seeking clarification and into head spinning pedantry.