red_flanders said:
That really illustrates why I find your general position on doping confusing...or maybe not confusing, I just don't know why you seek to hold people on a cycling forum to the standard you are held to in your work.
It seems completely normal to me that one would think and act as you do in your job. Of course if I had that job I'd treat people in that job the same way, because it would be my responsibility to enforce the rules of the game.
However posting on a forum and officiating a sport are two completely different things. If a cycling official were writing these posts I would find it appalling and I'm sure that person would be fired. No such burdens or responsibilities are put upon those who do not directly effect the outcome of a sport. People are simply posting opinion and discussing interesting and controversial topics. Fully your right to criticize us for it, but some people see it as completely normal and ethically acceptable to have such discussions.
I suppose these are fair comments but do you think I should just ignore things that I find offensive and against all I have worked for for the last 28 years because it is a "FORUM"? How you do anything is how you do everything. I do not believe people are morally separated from what they say here in the forum and how they treat people in life. If you really want to defend a persons right to call you a pedophile or rapist in a forum then great you probably think it is ok to do it at work to a co worker or at school or at home about your spouse. It is wrong all the time not just in real life. Foxxy said CH is a doper not that he thinks CH must be cheating but that he is a doper. it looks subtle to you but it screams disrespect to me.
The other more complicated part is the fact that I know a lot of these riders personally. IE well enough that they know my name and what I do at the race. yes the uniform I wear identifies me but I have worked a 1/2 dozen races CH was entered in and he won the first tour of Georgia I was chief official at. I don't have his home number and we are not friends but I know him as a person which makes it personal to read this tripe.
I also defended LA and not because I thought he is clean but for the same reasons of due process. My first encounter with him definitely put him on the A-hole list way back when he was 18 years old. I did not like him from the first words I heard him say. My defence was over due process and in the end he fell. For me that was just relief the truth was finally out. So I can say I might be intolerant of many Clinic threads but I am consistent.
Now as for the clines itself.
Way too many people only see cycling from this point of view. every subject they participate turns to doping, including things that probably are not really clinic subjects. You could be sure that if the thread was about LA bike company the thread would be in the clinic only because LA is now a confirmed doper.
Then there is the general lack of perspective. CH is performing better than he ever did? IS he better or has the playing field levelled enough that he is finally getting the opportunity to show that talent? I say it is a possibility and well you have read the rest.
I am optimistic that the peloton is really changing and from the car it looks different. riders look real. they get tired sooner after long or hard chases. the same guys can't get back to the front after they do their jobs because they need to recover. Riders are not attacking 10 km from the summit and winning. they are winning from 2 to 4 Km.
So much has changed and much cannot be easily seen from a tv screen so I think my optimism is well founded.
If you think my defence is over the top it is pretty easy to just read the next post in the thread but I see you read it anyway. You know where I will come from and what I will repeat so nothing new to read from me is there? Why do you read my posts? Of the several hundred posts and the dozens of posters I have not that many posts on this thread so ignoring me should be simple. I just hope I have made even 1 person look inside for their motivation to pile on.
Foxxy gets a pass when he calls CH a doper and not that he thinks the only explanation for his performance is drugs but I get a poke when I ask for the proof. Do you think that is fair? what is the difference if he calls you a XXXXXX? There are laws about this. Saying things are true when you can't provide evidence can ruin a life and I just think that we need to be accountable to provide proof or it is just an opinion which should be phrased that way.
There are some very good posts in the clinic too. the discussion of Xenon serves to bring attention to a new emerging method and I love that cycling teams are actually turning to WADA and asking for rules against it. The pathology of guys like Ricco is a great subject to explore the dopers mentality and motivation. It also is a good example of moral disconnect.
Do you really think I should just roll with it? There are lots of clinic threads I have never read too so they should be pretty safe from my posts.
Now if Foxxy could only provide the proof of CHs doping I could leave it alone. I see he is certain but does not seem to be able to tell us how his blood profile and Passport data explain his unreal performances against performances of riders who have since been proven dopers. These were the guys that CH was not keeping up to in the 90s. What drug is he taking? what is getting him up the climbs beyond his natural ability? If he has suddenly discovered the secret drug how did it raise his level above his talent? If it is EPO wouldn't he have higher HCT? If his HCT is the same what magic now makes him fly at 42? I want some because from my perspective all riders must be cheating especially the girls. I mean I have been riding for 30 years and can't do a sub 1 hour 40 k TT. My HCT is around 43 to 45, My Testosterone levels are higher than some especially the girls and I have reasonable muscle mass yet I am slow and always have been. why didn't I make pro? Maybe because even if I got a pass on the drugs it wouldn't be enough. I need better parents.
If anyone can prove Ch is doping i think it would serve us very well but in the absence of proof his performances are legit under all the applicable rules. Not saying that everyone must believe it but they cannot say he is a doper. only that they do not believe he is clean. That allows for non belief but still accepts that in the absence of proof this is the worst they can say.
Last point is why can a person make slanderous posts about a person and get a pass just because it is a forum? The clinic has a lot of threads that might violate libel and slander laws but if it is in a cycling forum mostly restricted to hardcore cycling fans that it is some kind of protected speech? A person can make a public statement that a person is a cheater or worse without proof and it is OK. Try writing to the editor of your local paper and say the mayor in your town is a pedophile, Maybe that is not a good example but how about a liar? We all know that if their lips are moving that a politician must be lying. At some point you have to provide proof.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram