Who's really responsible?

[JRTinMA]

Wrong again

You do not need to look any further then the founder of this site, Bill Mitchell. When all he did was report on the questions the French press were asking about doping he was relentless harassed by loyal Armstrong groupies. He was called at home in Australia all night long and his employeer was besieged by people demanding he be fired. To make the harassment stop he sold the site for almost nothing. It was sold a few years later for $5,000,000

in his parting letter he wrote



This same formula was repeated over and over. Anyone who questioned the myth would be subject to insensate harassment from clueless groupies.

Your evidence is some guy who couldn't take the heat and writes of white hoods and McCarthyism? Having conviction and telling the truth isn't for everybody, Kimmage and Walsh didn't bend under attack. Your own mission has never waivered and you have made many claims of intimidation and attempts at outing you. Blame the fans all you want but you have it wrong, dead wrong. This game is ill from the inside, money and corruption destroyed this sport. The fans were victims of the lies perpetuated by most of the same people involved in the sport today.

 

[Race Radio]

Your evidence is some guy who couldn't take the heat and writes of white hoods and McCarthyism? Having conviction and telling the truth isn't for everybody, Kimmage and Walsh didn't bend under attack. Your own mission has never waivered and you have made many claims of intimidation and attempts at outing you. Blame the fans all you want but you have it wrong, dead wrong. This game is ill from the inside, money and corruption destroyed this sport. The fans were victims of the lies perpetuated by most of the same people involved in the sport today.

Thanks again for proving my point. Even you admit the fans harassed anyone who questioned the myth

 

[spetsa]

Maybe I was a little naive but I certainly didnt realise the enormity of the problem until Puerto.

I ask these questions in all sincerity and in no way an attack on you personally

1- When did you actually start to follow cycling?
2- How much of your knowledge was gained from Bicyling/ Velonews/OLN-Versus TDF coverage?

I seem to find #2 as common denominators among those sports fans who took a liking to the sport of cycling, either through casual observation only or participation after being exposed to it. Personally, I will never discount the role that Liggett, Sherwin and Roll had on American fans/observers cluelesness of what was really going on.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

What an utterly ridiculous concept. The fans have little or no responsibility at all in the mess that is cycling...Yeah, its the fans fault if you believe personal responsibility and corruption don't matter. You know who else is responsible? Every doper still allowed to make a penny in this sport, its like hiring a career embezzler to manage your finances, its ridiculous. The stars of cycling were created by drugs and greed, thats not the fans responsibility, its the sports.

Your knee jerk reaction to my post is facile to say the least. The apologists include not only the herd of ostrich fans with their heads in the sand, but also media, the riders accepting the medical assistance, team management, owners, sponsors, event owners, and governing bodies.

In short, this is an obvious truism but anyone who ever expressly or implicitly said doping was OK is responsible. Trying to assign one of these constituencies with more or less of the blame than others as with the OP is an unnecessary and pointless exercise. All you need to know is that is was wrong. The common shout out from the apologists that professional cycling is a form of entertainment no different than professional wrestling is a ridiculous comparison. Professional wrestling isn't actual competition (except perhaps to small children), and it's not practiced as an organized activity at any level except within the sphere of professional entertainment.

In contrast cycling is a sporting activity that stretches down to the grassroots community level of both competition and recreation, encompassing values consistent with a healthy lifestyle. To those that are happy to see cycling pulled into or remain in a cesspool beneath the concepts of fair play and morality, I find your views abhorrent. You are not the people I choose to associate with personally or professionally.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yeah!.......

 

[nevada]

I ask these questions in all sincerity and in no way an attack on you personally

1- When did you actually start to follow cycling?
2- How much of your knowledge was gained from Bicyling/ Velonews/OLN-Versus TDF coverage?

I seem to find #2 as common denominators among those sports fans who took a liking to the sport of cycling, either through casual observation only or participation after being exposed to it. Personally, I will never discount the role that Liggett, Sherwin and Roll had on American fans/observers cluelesness of what was really going on.

From the 80's - mainly UK stuff and whatever euro bits were in Cycling weekly. I was always aware of amphetamine but the blood doping was new to me.

 

[Maxiton]

Wrong again

You do not need to look any further then the founder of this site, Bill Mitchell. When all he did was report on the questions the French press were asking about doping he was relentless harassed by loyal Armstrong groupies. He was called at home in Australia all night long and his employeer was besieged by people demanding he be fired. To make the harassment stop he sold the site for almost nothing. It was sold a few years later for $5,000,000

in his parting letter he wrote



This same formula was repeated over and over. Anyone who questioned the myth would be subject to insensate harassment from clueless groupies.

Thanks for that. I agree that thoughtless fandom has some responsibility for the state of commercial sport, cycling in particular. But of course they are being manipulated by commercial interests who have their own profit in mind. In the case you site, Bill Mitchell attacked by fans, the hand of Armstrong was directly behind it, as you yourself have pointed out. Armstrong's fans were legion and like religious fanatics.

While I am not a big supporter of conspiracy theories it wouldn't be the first time that Armstrong used his influence to go after a critic.

Bassons talks about doping = Hassled into retirement.
Simeoni testify truthfully = Defamed, chased down twice and blocked from the Giro (while Italian national champion)
Andreu testifies truthfully = Fired from job by large Livestrong doner. Blocked from other employment on request from Wonderboy. Harnessed by phone and e-mail by groupies.
Anderson finds PED's in apartment = Harassed until he has a seizer
Lemond disappointed about Armstrong working with Ferrari = Armstrong forces Trek to stop supporting LeMond Bikes brand. Contacts other LeMond business partners. Slam Dunk case of tortious interference

And of course Bill Mitchell, founder of Cyclingnews. He reported on what the European newspapers were saying about how unbelievable Armstrong's performance was in 1999. Armstrong puts Bill's contact and employment info on his website. Bill is harnessed by groupies relentlessly for months. His employer,University of Newcastle, is called and lobbied to fire Bill. Finally he sells the site for almost nothing to Gerard Knapp....who then sells it for $5 million a few years later. In his farewell post (Since deleted from the site) he wrote.



If you think that Armstrong is sitting by and allowing the investigation to take it's course then you haven't been paying attention.

Here's a couple of interesting links about Bill mitchell and the site he founded, Cycling News.


http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2011/08/cyclingnews-a-web-1-0-success-story/


http://www.econ-outlook.com.au/~bill/goodbye.html

 

[ElChingon]

Agh Bill... there should be a shrine for him, if at least a dedicated sticky thread.

He'd answer e-mails all the time till the end where I guess he was bombarded, cool dude, started a cool site which for his rein was great in that it was the facts and not the BS it is today. Sure it was text based but that was the genius as well, sure pic's and video are cool but you don't need that to write what happened in a race, assuming you know how to write (hint hint to the tabloid journals...). Maybe it was because he wasn't a plain old journalist that he wrote to us fans as a fan which made the reading that much more enjoyable. He didn't write it in the classic journal format which is on every other site so why add yet an Nth site with the same BS?

Its now yet another general journal site with journal site story formats which is as unique as a the sun rising. The journals I doubt even cycle or are really into it like us, its a job and as all jobs takes on the drudgery of a job...

 

[VeloCity]

So, instead of pinning doping on 1 or 2 athletes/teams/doctors, who do you think is REALLY responsible?

The riders, teams, and doctors. They are ultimately the ones who chose to dope and the ones ultimately responsible. Trying to deflect the blame onto the UCI or whatever else is nonsense.

 

[Maxiton]

The riders, teams, and doctors. They are ultimately the ones who chose to dope and the ones ultimately responsible. Trying to deflect the blame onto the UCI or whatever else is nonsense.

Actually, given the highly corrupt nature of the UCI in general, its essential conflicts of interest, and the fact that it consciously facilitates doping as part of its promotion of the sport, even as it supposedly fights doping and ruins the careers of some; given in particular its complicity in facilitating and protecting the doping program at USPS through the nineties, and its covering up of positives from certain riders; given its role in persecuting those who try to come clean; and given, lastly, its central role and responsibility within the sport; you'd have to lay much of the blame, if not all of it, squarely at the feet of this heinous (I see what I did there) organization.

 

[131313]

You do not need to look any further then the founder of this site, Bill Mitchell. When all he did was report on the questions the French press were asking about doping he was relentless harassed by loyal Armstrong groupies. He was called at home in Australia all night long and his employeer was besieged by people demanding he be fired. To make the harassment stop he sold the site for almost nothing. It was sold a few years later for $5,000,000

While I share your disdain for the delusional chamois-sniffers, you're engaging in some pretty serious hyperbole here..and in the process being pretty dismissive of the actions of Gerard Knapp.

First, the Armstrong groupies were just one part of the puzzle. The site was growing, rapidly, and Mitchell wasn't the delegating type of guy. Plus, he had a real job that he wasn't going to give up to run a cycling website. So, the fact that he moved on is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, the idea that Knapp bought the site at a fire sale price and then just flipped it is a bit insulting. No offense to Bill, but in the 8 years Knapp owned the site, it grew exponentially, after a LOT of very hard work. It was a totally different site by then. Mitchell was a college professor doing the site as a labor of love, Knapp was a professional who was committed to growing the site as much as possible. They both deserve a lot of credit, but let's not make up a new reality just to make the Armstrong nut huggers look bad--they can do that on their own.

 

[VeloCity]

Actually, given the highly corrupt nature of the UCI in general, its essential conflicts of interest, and the fact that it consciously facilitates doping as part of its promotion of the sport, even as it supposedly fights doping and ruins the careers of some; given in particular its complicity in facilitating and protecting the doping program at USPS through the nineties, and its covering up of positives from certain riders; given its role in persecuting those who try to come clean; and given, lastly, its central role and responsibility within the sport; you'd have to lay much of the blame, if not all of it, squarely at the feet of this heinous (I see what I did there) organization.

The UCI may have turned a blind eye to doping - on the other hand, what can they do other than test? - and it may have even facilitated doping, but whether or not there is doping in a sport - any sport - is ultimately the athlete's decision and responsibility. The question was "who is REALLY responsible" - well, it's the riders who are really responsible. If they chose not to dope, there wouldn't be doping in the peloton, it's really as simple as that (but given human nature, that's not going to happen, of course). I think we like to try and blame others because being cycling fans we know and like the riders and it's easier to blame some faceless nameless organization, but fact is, in simplest terms doping only exists in the peloton because a lot of riders chose/choose to dope, aided and abetted and often encouraged by teams/DS'/doctors.

 

[thehog]

The UCI may have turned a blind eye to doping - on the other hand, what can they do other than test? - and it may have even facilitated doping, but whether or not there is doping in a sport - any sport - is ultimately the athlete's decision and responsibility.

The point more being that he (Armstrong) had a choice. Imagine a different world whereby he came back from cancer and worked for a clean sport? Imagine him finishing Top 20 maybe but pioneering and leading the change in the sport. He’d win a stage here at there against a dirty peloton but he could have been the wind of change. Livestrong could have still formed and been successful. But he didn’t want it that way. He chose another route. His choice. He should be stripped of all titles. Period. No excuses.

 

[Maxiton]

The UCI may have turned a blind eye to doping - on the other hand, what can they do other than test? - and it may have even facilitated doping, but whether or not there is doping in a sport - any sport - is ultimately the athlete's decision and responsibility.

Of course. But when the choice given them is dope, or you don't ride - and that was the choice many of them faced - it becomes a little more problematic to say doping or not doping is their responsibility and theirs alone.

 

[131313]

The UCI may have turned a blind eye to doping - on the other hand, what can they do other than test? -

Well, they could start by sanctioning people when they actually do test positive rather than actively covering up things...

But, more appropriately, then can remove themselves AND the national federations completely from the testing and results management process all together. Removing that glaring conflict of interest would be a good start. It's simply not possible to have any credibility when you're regulating and promoting at the same time.

 

[Race Radio]

Secondly, the idea that Knapp bought the site at a fire sale price and then just flipped it is a bit insulting. No offense to Bill, but in the 8 years Knapp owned the site, it grew exponentially, after a LOT of very hard work. It was a totally different site by then. Mitchell was a college professor doing the site as a labor of love, Knapp was a professional who was committed to growing the site as much as possible. They both deserve a lot of credit, but let's not make up a new reality just to make the Armstrong nut huggers look bad--they can do that on their own.

It was not my intention to devalue Knapp's input, it was huge......as was the growth of the internet as a way that people consumed their news.

Yes, the harassment play a role in Mitchell selling the site, that is why he mentioned it in his exit letter

 

[DirtyWorks]

Actually, given the highly corrupt nature of the UCI in general, its essential conflicts of interest, and the fact that it consciously facilitates doping as part of its promotion of the sport, even as it supposedly fights doping and ruins the careers of some; given in particular its complicity in facilitating and protecting the doping program at USPS through the nineties, and its covering up of positives from certain riders; given its role in persecuting those who try to come clean; and given, lastly, its central role and responsibility within the sport; you'd have to lay much of the blame, if not all of it, squarely at the feet of this heinous (I see what I did there) organization.

Well said! I hope to write that well one day.

 

[Maxiton]

Well said! I hope to write that well one day.

Thanks. Just use a lot of semicolons.

 

[VeloCity]

Of course. But when the choice given them is dope, or you don't ride - and that was the choice many of them faced - it becomes a little more problematic to say doping or not doping is their responsibility and theirs alone.

But it's still a choice. I understand that to say it's solely the responsibility of riders that doping exists is way overly simplistic, but fundamentally it's really not much more complicated than that - the only reason any sport has a doping problem is because athletes, being human beings and subject to temptation, choose to dope. Even if the choice is, as you put it, "dope or walk away", many still choose to dope. As I said before, the question was "who is REALLY to blame" and imo it's the participants, not the organizers (and believe me, I am no fan of the UCI).

 

[Maxiton]

But it's still a choice. I understand that to say it's solely the responsibility of riders that doping exists is way overly simplistic, but fundamentally it's really not much more complicated than that - the only reason any sport has a doping problem is because athletes, being human beings and subject to temptation, choose to dope. Even if the choice is, as you put it, "dope or walk away", many still choose to dope. As I said before, the question was "who is REALLY to blame" and imo it's the participants, not the organizers (and believe me, I am no fan of the UCI).

But it doesn't solve the doping problem to say that. It solves nothing. Hundreds of riders have walked away. People who were talented, even gifted, walked away early on or never got into the pro ranks to begin with, and we never heard their names.

As long as you can find among the world's population enough people who can ride without training wheels and are willing to submit to "doctor's orders" ("It's not like we're asking you to cheat, we just want you to follow the program"), you'll have a doping infested sport - As long, that is, as it's overseen by the UCI and the people who run it. Why? Because that's the way they want things.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But it's still a choice. I understand that to say it's solely the responsibility of riders that doping exists is way overly simplistic, but fundamentally it's really not much more complicated than that

Just because you want it to be so doesn't mean it is. I agree that it should be a simple "no thank you" for every athlete and the sport should then experience a decline in elite participation. For some it was that simple and they did just walk away.

Others seemingly thrive in the systematized cheating or are so attached to being on the A-team in SOMETHING it becomes a difficult question. Elite cycling is a perfect environment to observe exactly how difficult it is to protect people from themselves sometimes.

 

[VeloCity]

Just because you want it to be so doesn't mean it is. I agree that it should be a simple "no thank you" for every athlete and the sport should then experience a decline in elite participation. For some it was that simple and they did just walk away.

That they stayed and doped was their choice. It might have been a very weighted choice and not a simple yes/no, but no one held a gun to their head.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But it's still a choice. I understand that to say it's solely the responsibility of riders that doping exists is way overly simplistic, but fundamentally it's really not much more complicated than that - the only reason any sport has a doping problem is because athletes, being human beings and subject to temptation, choose to dope. Even if the choice is, as you put it, "dope or walk away", many still choose to dope. As I said before, the question was "who is REALLY to blame" and imo it's the participants, not the organizers (and believe me, I am no fan of the UCI).

Of course it is the riders choice.
However as pointed out that's a simplistic and unfair on a lot of them.
When the people in charge (UCI, team DSs etc) look the other way and sometimes encourage it then it is not a simplistic choice.

 

[VeloCity]

you'll have a doping infested sport - As long, that is, as it's overseen by the UCI and the people who run it. Why? Because that's the way they want things.

I think that's the biggest myth of all, that doping only exists because the UCI tolerates it. Again, I'm no fan of the UCI, but to me this idea that they can make it disappear if they really wanted to is just a way of shifting responsibility away from the riders.

Let's say that the UCI wasn't corrupt, etc. How exactly would they end doping in the peloton?

 

[VeloCity]

Of course it is the riders choice.
However as pointed out that's a simplistic and unfair on a lot of them.
When the people in charge (UCI, team DSs etc) look the other way and sometimes encourage it then it is not a simplistic choice.

Yeah, I've already said that, but again, the original question was, who is really responsible for doping? Well, when phrased that way, that would be the athlete's themselves. It's not the UCI, it's not the Ferrari's, it's not the Bruyneel's - they aid and abet and encourage, no question there whatsoever, but to paraphrase Truman, the buck stops with the guys poking themselves with the needles.