Master50 said:
There is something I feel I am missing here and your response has me pondering it all day.
I have always assumed the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong. <snip>
Are you suggesting it is actually motivated by ??? what are you suggesting. If it isn't because we care and that we think doping is a problem then why are we here?
I think you are attempting to frame the motivations of posters here in black & white terms as well. Your belief that, “the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong” is a bit idealistic, I hate to say. To some, I would argue that is simply nothing more than entertainment. At times, I would certainly fall into that category myself.
Why, you may ask, with a certain degree of astonishment? Because much of it simply becomes farcical over time. Failed test of an already-suspicious rider. Canned and predictable denials. Confirmation of failed tests. Legal action threatened...
It becomes a circus. Watching the unfolding side-show does have its entertainment value though, depending on one’s perspective.
For others (and I, too, fall into this category at times) there is a genuine curiosity about what goes on behind the curtain of pro cycling. What methods are used to cheat? What are the effects of such methods? How many other people have access to these methods? Etc. But this same curiosity can also be somewhat dispassionate at times. It’s no longer a moral or ethical issue, but more along the lines of scientific curiosity. Nothing more, nothing less. That same curiosity might also include sociological and anthropological elements. Why do these people behave this way, and what does that tell us in the grander scheme of things?
And then, among other varying perspectives, there are the passionate, die-hard cycling fans that wish nothing more than to see the scourge of doping eradicated from their beloved sport. At times, this is me as well. See? Shades of grey, if you will. I’d be willing to bet that only the smallest minority of forum members fall into one category, and one category only. Life is complex. Humans are complex. One size does not fit all when it comes to sorting these things out.
Master50 said:
I disagree with your apology of modern communications. It is so much easier to irreparably and permanently destroy a person with forums and social media that the highest standards of ethical behavior is critical.
It is not my intention to apologize for any of it, but you seem very determined to maintain the above line of reasoning. Could you please provide us with examples of people being “permanently” destroyed (I assume you also mean "wrongly" destroyed) by these methods,
as it applies here, in our tiny corner of the interwebz? In the realm that we occupy (pro cycling and the related online community) I have yet to see any examples of that. To expand on one of the points I made in a previous post:
As caustic, toxic and “potentially” damaging as online commentary may be, the one thing working against it is the avalanche of daily info that we are faced with.
Chris Horner was born on Mars?!
Look, a jet liner lost a wing during takeoff!
Did you see that calico cat that pulled the infant from a burning house?!
OMG, they just discovered surveillance tape from inside the school book depository in Dallas!
Earthquakes.
Tsunamis.
Floods.
Droughts...
All that, before 9:00am on any given day. Even the most damning accusation have to compete with an onslaught of digital overload that each and every one of us is forced to filter on a regular basis. The other side of that, of course (and this may be your point), is that if something
does gain traction, it can catch fire and reach every corner of the planet within minutes. But even under those circumstances, it’s shelf life is usually very limited and fleeting. Tens of millions of people will see to that by injecting hundreds of millions of texts, picture and links to
other ideas—all before lunch time. This is not meant to excuse inexcusable behavior, but rather to frame it in a different light. It may not be as damaging as you imagine (which is a good thing, and I think we will both agree on that).
If this were the 1960s, and Walter Cronkite announced on the Nightly News that there were reasons to suspect Chris Horner of doping (and for all I know, Horner was racing back then, too) then yes, he would be faced with a very serious problem—one that could be a career-ender for him. But even Race Radio (sorry, dude) doesn’t have the clout or influence of the esteemed Mr. Cronkite . So Christopher is probably safe. At least from us.
Master50 said:
Cyber bulling is credited with several suicides here in BC. Is that your defence of forum behaviour? I don't think so and I don't think my Grandmothers teachings were of no value in this Internet age.
I'm not disputing such horrors, but again, I think you're misplacing your perspective. The equivalent of those tragedies that you describe,
for our purposes, would be if other riders in the peloton would constantly harassing and intimidating Horner. A good example of that might be what Bassons was subjected to under the oppression of Armstrong and all the other accomplices on the road at that time. (Of course cyber-bullying, as we now know it, wasn't an option at the time, but I've no doubt that it, too, would've been used to full effect had it been.)
But that is not what we are discussing here. I’m fairly confident that even the most concerted, tag-team effort by thehog, Dr Maserati and ChewbaccaD would have no such effect on Christopher Horner’s career. See the difference? It’s easy, and perhaps tempting, to reach for the most emotionally charged elements of cyber-behavior. But no one, that I am aware of, has lost a job or suffered any worst fate, in pro cycling, due to even the largest army of anonymous, online crusaders. The only times there have been real consequences, are when there have been real indiscretions (Hi, Lance!). If anything, the history of pro cycling tells us that,
by far, most of the guilty ones have gone unpunished. I think that should illustrate the ineffectiveness of taking someone down by forums, Twitter or blogs alone. It takes power, influence and, most importantly,
authority, that far surpasses anything generated on the pages of The Clinic. Can you cite any examples to the contrary?
Master50 said:
I think you likely agree unless Nothing above applies. It just bothers me that you think I should be more grey and not so black and white. Sorry I thought we all agreed that at least in the clinic doping was black and clean is white?
I hesitate to speak for others here, but I don’t think that comes even close to describing The Clinic. My experience of reading these pages tells me that there are many shades. To some, yes, a doper is a doper, is a doper. All equal. To most others though, there are varying degrees of transgressions, with varying degrees of contempt or forgiveness attached, based on a wide variety of factors.
By the way, thanks for your contributions to this discussion thus far, and for getting me to stretch my brain a bit on these matters. And thanks for not taking my initial response to your post too personally. It wasn't meant to be, as I was only hoping to offer my own perspective.