Why?

[andy1234]

My mirror reflects without all the PR BS that the teams, federations and arselicking hacks would have fans believe. Keep stroking your little unicorn.

And it's your job to let everyone know that you're not fooled.
The sport needs fans like you, as much as it needed Armstrong.
The real anti dopers probably love the sport, while people like you, have simply found a vehicle for your bitc*ing.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And it's your job to let everyone know that you're not fooled.
The sport needs fans like you, as much as it needed Armstrong.
The real anti dopers probably love the sport, while people like you, have simply found a vehicle for your bitc*ing.

That line of reasoning is complete BS and you know it. You may not agree with his complete pessimism, but to suggest he is doing it because he just needs to complain about something is a false argument. This is a cycling forum, and I would venture that there are numerous other things in this world that he could choose to complain about that are much more important to the world if all he wanted to do was complain. He cares about professional cycling.

 

[andy1234]

That line of reasoning is complete BS and you know it. You may not agree with his complete pessimism, but to suggest he is doing it because he just needs to complain about something is a false argument. This is a cycling forum, and I would venture that there are numerous other things in this world that he could choose to complain about that are much more important to the world if all he wanted to do was complain. He cares about professional cycling.

I don't know it.

If complaints are simply doping based, then you have a point.
Its not hard, however, to spot the posters who are looking for any reason to criticise the riders. Like I said, when the doping discussion stops, every other aspect of the riders lives are also brought into question.

Anti doping is a noble pursuit. *** slinging is not.
The clinic attracts both.

 

[Zweistein]

it would be an interesting sociology study, to see how a firm like Public Strategies, seeds talking points into the media, and then these talking points are adopted by self-appointed deputies to defend their hero's innocence. For every intern at LiveStrong in Waco, whoops, i mean Austin, Texas, there are atleast their equivalent hitting up web fora with hollow threats to take legal action or suppress dialogue. those who were on Daily Peloton remember fondly bobkedeSubaru/hombre/bobke, Chris H, Whareagle, House, dBrower, Bill Hue, and others, who brought a very naive and neophyte pov to cycling and doping.

Chris H still posts here. Occasionally, so does House. Their defense of Armstrong changes each time new information comes out. He didn't dope. He didn't cheat anyone. Only as much as the others. He is being scapegoated. What more do you want him to say, he did give a full confession on Ophra?


I wish the people at dailypeloton kept the same names when they moved here. Does anyone know who smug post as here if he does? And Ration Head? Dailypeloton used to be a very interesting place. People forget that Floyd Landis started his crap storm at the forums there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know it.

If complaints are simply doping based, then you have a point.
Its not hard, however, to spot the posters who are looking for any reason to criticise the riders. Like I said, when the doping discussion stops, every other aspect of the riders lives are also brought into question.

Anti doping is a noble pursuit. *** slinging is not.
The clinic attracts both.

Both?
The Clinic is an online forum - you conveniently leave out other bigger groups like the fans of riders/teams, or the plain trolls.

 

[andy1234]

Both?
The Clinic is an online forum - you conveniently leave out other bigger groups like the fans of riders/teams, or the plain trolls.

I'm going to join you for just one round Doc.

I didn't say the clinic ONLY had both!
You discuss the rest of the participants all you like though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm going to join you for just one round Doc.

I didn't say the clinic ONLY had both!
You discuss the rest of the participants all you like though.

Thats what you should be doing - discussing the actual individual participants and what they post. You appear to want to talk about a collective called The Clinic, it does not exist.

 

[andy1234]

Thats what you should be doing - discussing the actual individual participants and what they post. You appear to want to talk about a collective called The Clinic, it does not exist.

You're just not trying Doc, but against my better judgement I'm going to reply.

The clinic is most certainly a collective, however, I was being very specific in who I was referring to, but to single him out as the only cuprit would be unfair.

Now resist the urge to discuss every phrase I have just used and try for the bigger picture.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're just not trying Doc, but against my better judgement I'm going to reply.

The clinic is most certainly a collective, however, I was being very specific in who I was referring to, but to single him out as the only cuprit would be unfair.

So, the Clinic is a collective, yet you were attempting to be specific to one member?

If you disagree with poster X, then you are not disagreeing with the Clinic, CN or the internet, you are merely disagreeing with that specific poster.

Now resist the urge to discuss every phrase I have just used and try for the bigger picture.

Why not save us both the time and make a clear, reasonable and semi articulate point that makes sense?

 

[andy1234]

So, the Clinic is a collective, yet you were attempting to be specific to one member?

If you disagree with poster X, then you are not disagreeing with the Clinic, CN or the internet, you are merely disagreeing with that specific poster.


Why not save us both the time and make a clear, reasonable and semi articulate point that makes sense?

And I'm out....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And I'm out....

....with no-score.

 

[Taxus4a]

Mainstream is daily newspapers, tv and radio, not internet forums.

In Spain is always with the media: cycling is doping, cycling is doping, in the OP were just cyclist,... with some exception. And people, cycling fans and no cycling fans, in a hight percentage think that way today. And things like Armstrong affair only increase that.

No with specialized webs or magazines. They dont talk usually or excuse the dopers, but it depends

That mainstream you say I see inside cyclingworld.

In the dark era nobody wanted to talk, and when they talked they trying to excuse doping in anyway, abstrac way sometimes. but now people talk about that, and point if believe someone is doping, say how thinks were in the past, and what they see and feel now.

They dont talk very well of the UCI anyway in general.

 

[Ferminal]

Why do I hate pro cycling?

 

[martinvickers]

Why do I hate pro cycling?

I don't know. Why DO you hate pro cycling?

(is this a trick question?)

 

[observer]

I think people come in here with ideas about their favourite riders. They could be new to following the sport and are shocked at some of the discussions in here.

In Australia, most people think that cycling is a dopers sport, but not OUR Cadel, or OUR Stuey, so the mention of it, or the discussion is a shock. And it's those same people who would easily say that Sastre was doping, or that Rodriguez is a doper, without any evidence to do so, they just think that someone with a different surname would dope because they are winning. Buh, oh, not OUR boys. Thats where the shock comes in.

I think its hard for people to come in with the starting point that everyone is a doper. And perhaps we add weight to that with rumours or observations.

 

[blackcat]

I think people come in here with ideas about their favourite riders. They could be new to following the sport and are shocked at some of the discussions in here.

In Australia, most people think that cycling is a dopers sport, but not OUR Cadel, or OUR Stuey, so the mention of it, or the discussion is a shock. And it's those same people who would easily say that Sastre was doping, or that Rodriguez is a doper, without any evidence to do so, they just think that someone with a different surname would dope because they are winning. Buh, oh, not OUR boys. Thats where the shock comes in.

I think its hard for people to come in with the starting point that everyone is a doper. And perhaps we add weight to that with rumours or observations.

this is a good point. but i wish to add two elements.

first position. doping =/= being bad person. it is not a moral judgement imo. and i could make the case it is not a moral relativist position.
*i think the gentleman 131313 made the point, doping has no relationship to whether you are a nice person of sound character or an utter pri(k. 131313 is a US domestic pro. (and poster on clinic forum)

second. point, was the moral point. and i am up for a debate on the relativist merit or not

NOT everyone dopes. Not everyone on Sky even doped. I would think that riders like Michael Barry were clean when he rode on Sky. When he rode the World Champs in Hamilton, that was an obvious doped ride, but i think Barry would have been clean for a part of his veteran stage. And i think Lovqvist might have been clean. When he was an espoir and won or podiumed in lAvenir, i think it is tough (nigh impossible) to win that race clean, but i think Lovqvist rode some of his career on sky bread and water.

"I think". basically, it is hunch, i had no clue, no evidence, and no reason to support it

 

[Athame]

Here is Wisdom, Let him that hath understanding count the number of The Clinic.

_________________ for it is a human number. It's number is.......

 

[Ripper]

and i think the original iteration of Ban Pro Cycling was Arbiter.

Yup

I couldn't remember.

And BPC's original moniker was Arbiter, but he made enough names that had BPC as the acronym that it stuck.

British Pro Cycling. Ban Pro Cycling.

Didn't he also use a number of Hombres?

F**k, perhaps I should be part of the Clinic 11/12

 

[Ripper]

No, that was Jackhammer/Carboncrank. He said he was going to come kill me and rape my wife.

I remember that nutter.

Total nutter.

 

[Ripper]

You're just not trying Doc, but against my better judgement I'm going to reply.

The clinic is most certainly a collective, however, I was being very specific in who I was referring to, but to single him out as the only cuprit would be unfair.

Now resist the urge to discuss every phrase I have just used and try for the bigger picture.

Is it? Am I part of that collective? And how about Jimmy?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Why do some posters/readers think that The Clinic regular posters are all the same and do not have reasonable views? And that we are all extremist.

Because they (you) only want to argue and not discuss doping issues rationally. It has turned into a blog blood sport where the biggest put down or most cynical post is regaled as the best post.

In addition many posts just don't make any sense, are poorly written, are replete with atrocious grammar and spelling, have no context and have no logical cogency. The Clinic 12 have minimal cred with the rational and reasonable majority. They are legends in their own minds only!

 

[andy1234]

Is it? Am I part of that collective? And how about Jimmy?

As soon as you start posting in the clinic, you become a part of the collective that is this forum, otherwise we would all be airing our views on doping randomly.
You are confusing being part of a collective, as being part of a group that agrees with each other.

 

[BroDeal]

Because they (you) only want to argue and not discuss doping issues rationally. It has turned into a blog blood sport where the biggest put down or most cynical post is regaled as the best post.

In addition many posts just don't make any sense, are poorly written, are replete with atrocious grammar and spelling, have no context and have no logical cogency. The Clinic 12 have minimal cred with the rational and reasonable majority. They are legends in their own minds only!

Hold it. Are you not the guy who was threatening to fight people when you were getting your ass handed to you in a thread? And you think you are rational and reasonable? LOL.

 

[wansteadimp]

2 points

The lack of reasoning that goes in to some peoples posts - yes Froome (for example) is almost certainly doping. However, every aspect of his life isn't living proof of doping. Yet every utterance and action of his is taken as a sign of doping. Lets face it, if he dyed his hair blonde it would be seen as proof of doping.

Debate about doping generally or specifically about non Sky riders can't happen with out a dig about Sky. Yes we know that they probably dope, it doesn't need bringing up in every thread, there are Sky/Wiggins/Froome/Porte threads for that.

 

[The Hitch]

2 points

The lack of reasoning that goes in to some peoples posts - yes Froome (for example) is almost certainly doping. However, every aspect of his life isn't living proof of doping. Yet every utterance and action of his is taken as a sign of doping. Lets face it, if he dyed his hair blonde it would be seen as proof of doping.

Behaviour I also despise and always confront, yet it must be remembered that it is only a very small minority that fits your description.