Why?

[Libertine Seguros]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8

 

[blackcat]

No, because it makes zero sense.

See, you mention JV & 131313, 2 guys who are involved. But earlier you said there was a barrier of entry, that they could not change it from the inside.
And yet you claim to know all this while admitting you are an 'outsider'.

yeah, all those journos and people who have not been on the inside know nothing?

one knows nothing. but then quickly becomes jaundiced.

 

[Race Radio]

i actually agree with this. and disagree with RR. I dont think you can change it from within when there is this barrier of entry(one must accept), turn blind eye. i also dont think you can change from outside. sorry, no solutions here. but feel free to attack me.

It is possible to change some parts....but the craptastic amount of dhouchbags in the sport makes changing the culture very, very hard

 

[Granville57]

It is possible to change some parts....but the craptastic amount of dhouchbags in the sport makes changing the culture very, very hard

Name just one. I dare ya'.

 

[blackcat]

Name just one. I dare ya'.

the uci admin.

when you get the top deputies not doing what is best for the sport, but entrenching power in a few that dont deserve it, the sport inherits what it deserves. if the head is sociopathic, so the body will follow. no?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

yeah, all those journos and people who have not been on the inside know nothing?

one knows nothing. but then quickly becomes jaundiced.

Again, you make zero sense - who are "all those journalists"?
If you have an actual point - then you should be able to be clear at this stage. If not continue talking in riddles.

 

[blackcat]

Why not, he is playing the clean card. I dont believe him.



Many things as I have pointed out before.

Longer bans.
More testing, much more testing.
No team doctors
No TUEs
Criminalisation of doping that extends to the DS and Team owners if a rider dopes. ( might seem severe but this is what i suggest is needed to keep a lid and responisibilty on teams) Criminalisation does not necessitate jail time, but a record is enough.

There is more.
Simplification of the sport makes the management of the sport easier too.

i am not into criminalisation for the pursuit of sport. trivial.

i also think longer bans, cannot be just when you cannot enforce a justice tenet of universality. if you have too many false negatives, and only catching 3% of riders doping, you are effectively scapegoating this 3% and they are paying the downpayment for the ills of cycling.

i dont think ricco should suffer the opprobrium and scorn. same with kohl and schumacher. and diluca, rebellin. it is not fair that they have really done nothing different from the pointy end competitor pool. it does not sit well with me.

the doping does not "sit" well, but i can reconcile it with greater clarity than having a few dopers pay the price for a major proportion of the peloton, and armstrong gets his entire career and take home of a TdF salary. (his other income is inconsequential for this argument, this is about ricco's take home pay for pedalling that was denied him, but protected for armstrong).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is possible to change some parts....but the craptastic amount of dhouchbags in the sport makes changing the culture very, very hard

Hmmm.
But isn't one of the reasons the sport attracted so many db's at the top of Pro cycling because of the way it was run by other db's?

the uci admin.

when you get the top deputies not doing what is best for the sport, but entrenching power in a few that dont deserve it, the sport inherits what it deserves. if the head is sociopathic, so the body will follow. no?

This.
And that is what needs changing - the head ******.

 

[JimmyFingers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8

see this i disagree with, it's not simply a case of history repeating endlessly, the culture can change. I was first motivated to post here because there was so much accusations that Wiggins was simply a re-incarnation of Lance, when as I tried to point out they were totally different people with different upbringings, from different cultures and with different motivations. But I believe that transference remains: people see Wiggins and Froome and Sky and they see another Postal, another Lance.

And for that they are worse than simple dopers, get far more of a hard time than riders like Cancellara or Contador. even Ricco is seen as somewhat of a tragic figure, a victim of the system and his own stupidity.

Instead Sky are the flat track anglo bullies come to squeeze the life out of the racing, ruin it with science and power meters and stifling tactics. what did someone say here the other day? Oh yea:

Sky's tactics are worse for cycling than doping is.

A bizarre thing to say but there is an element of this that permeates throughout the boards 9not just the clinic). Too many times you see a flood of angry people in the clinic to complain about Sky winning. If you take the line that doping is still rife throughout the peloton, then all they've done is beaten a load of other dopers, yet the indignation is huge. The anglos again, got the UCI in their pocket, riding ugly, riding boring, riding doped to the gills. The posters come mob handed, screaming for a lynching. The TdF is likely to be hilarious for this reason.

But I have a lot of time for posters on here, even if they have conflicting opinions to me. Bennotti is far from being a troll, he's seething with anger and he has reason to. Blackcat is more zen. Hitch and DW have real issues with one rider but want the best for sport. FGL and LS have encyclopedic knowledge. Netserk too, mostly have good banter with all of them. Ferminal and Hiero bring real balance and calm to the forum. ChewbaccaD doesn't bring balance, but he does bring knowledge and wit.

Because I fail to see the need for personal arguments. This shouldn't be an internet pi$$ing contest. If the sport is as dirty as it has ever been then we all lose. If it is cleaning itself up then we all win.

Basically I just love riding bikes, and everything else stems from there. I think most people on here are like-minded, so whether we agree on doping or not, there's never a reason to fall out over it.

Hug it up bitches

 

[Netserk]

Great post Jimmy!

I actually agree with this:

But I believe that transference remains: people see Wiggins and Froome and Sky and they see another Postal, another Lance.

 

[the sceptic]

I see them as something much worse than postal.

Postal you only had to keep up with for 1 month of the year mostly. Sky are dominating every single stage race as well.

If Froome wins the tour and Cockson becomes uci prez then its no point watching cycling anymore.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

see this i disagree with, it's not simply a case of history repeating endlessly, the culture can change. I was first motivated to post here because there was so much accusations that Wiggins was simply a re-incarnation of Lance, when as I tried to point out they were totally different people with different upbringings, from different cultures and with different motivations. But I believe that transference remains: people see Wiggins and Froome and Sky and they see another Postal, another Lance.

And for that they are worse than simple dopers, get far more of a hard time than riders like Cancellara or Contador. even Ricco is seen as somewhat of a tragic figure, a victim of the system and his own stupidity.

Instead Sky are the flat track anglo bullies come to squeeze the life out of the racing, ruin it with science and power meters and stifling tactics. what did someone say here the other day? Oh yea:

Sky's tactics are worse for cycling than doping is.

A bizarre thing to say but there is an element of this that permeates throughout the boards 9not just the clinic). Too many times you see a flood of angry people in the clinic to complain about Sky winning. If you take the line that doping is still rife throughout the peloton, then all they've done is beaten a load of other dopers, yet the indignation is huge. The anglos again, got the UCI in their pocket, riding ugly, riding boring, riding doped to the gills. The posters come mob handed, screaming for a lynching. The TdF is likely to be hilarious for this reason.

But I have a lot of time for posters on here, even if they have conflicting opinions to me. Bennotti is far from being a troll, he's seething with anger and he has reason to. Blackcat is more zen. Hitch and DW have real issues with one rider but want the best for sport. FGL and LS have encyclopedic knowledge. Netserk too, mostly have good banter with all of them. Ferminal and Hiero bring real balance and calm to the forum. ChewbaccaD doesn't bring balance, but he does bring knowledge and wit.

Because I fail to see the need for personal arguments. This shouldn't be an internet pi$$ing contest. If the sport is as dirty as it has ever been then we all lose. If it is cleaning itself up then we all win.

Basically I just love riding bikes, and everything else stems from there. I think most people on here are like-minded, so whether we agree on doping or not, there's never a reason to fall out over it.

Hug it up bitches

The bit I highlighted does not gel with your earlier paragraph of why you joined here (which does make sense).

Hey, I get it - you like Wiggins, nothing wrong with that per se but following a rider and your mention of nationalism puts them of higher importance than the sport and means you cannot have an unbiased view on anti-doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I see them as something much worse than postal.

Postal you only had to keep up with for 1 month of the year mostly. Sky are dominating every single stage race as well.

If Froome wins the tour and Cockson becomes uci prez then its no point watching cycling anymore.

Can you explain the rationale behind this?
Are you suggesting that everything just move along as is? Give Pat another 4 years?

 

[gooner]

I see them as something much worse than postal.

Postal you only had to keep up with for 1 month of the year mostly. Sky are dominating every single stage race as well.

If Froome wins the tour and Cockson becomes uci prez then its no point watching cycling anymore.

But you're watching it now with McQuaid who tried to cover up Contador's positive.

And can we judge Sky independently and on it's own merits than to just say something as simplistic as comparing them with USP.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

see this i disagree with, it's not simply a case of history repeating endlessly, the culture can change. I was first motivated to post here because there was so much accusations that Wiggins was simply a re-incarnation of Lance, when as I tried to point out they were totally different people with different upbringings, from different cultures and with different motivations. But I believe that transference remains: people see Wiggins and Froome and Sky and they see another Postal, another Lance.

And for that they are worse than simple dopers, get far more of a hard time than riders like Cancellara or Contador. even Ricco is seen as somewhat of a tragic figure, a victim of the system and his own stupidity.

Instead Sky are the flat track anglo bullies come to squeeze the life out of the racing, ruin it with science and power meters and stifling tactics. what did someone say here the other day? Oh yea:

Sky's tactics are worse for cycling than doping is.

A bizarre thing to say but there is an element of this that permeates throughout the boards 9not just the clinic). Too many times you see a flood of angry people in the clinic to complain about Sky winning. If you take the line that doping is still rife throughout the peloton, then all they've done is beaten a load of other dopers, yet the indignation is huge. The anglos again, got the UCI in their pocket, riding ugly, riding boring, riding doped to the gills. The posters come mob handed, screaming for a lynching. The TdF is likely to be hilarious for this reason.

But I have a lot of time for posters on here, even if they have conflicting opinions to me. Bennotti is far from being a troll, he's seething with anger and he has reason to. Blackcat is more zen. Hitch and DW have real issues with one rider but want the best for sport. FGL and LS have encyclopedic knowledge. Netserk too, mostly have good banter with all of them. Ferminal and Hiero bring real balance and calm to the forum. ChewbaccaD doesn't bring balance, but he does bring knowledge and wit.

Because I fail to see the need for personal arguments. This shouldn't be an internet pi$$ing contest. If the sport is as dirty as it has ever been then we all lose. If it is cleaning itself up then we all win.

Basically I just love riding bikes, and everything else stems from there. I think most people on here are like-minded, so whether we agree on doping or not, there's never a reason to fall out over it.

Hug it up bitches

I was first motivated to start posting on a cycling forum because I was watching the TdF and Cadel was wheel sucking, so I typed "Cadel Evans is a wheel sucking pu**y" into Google, and cyclingforums.com came up at the top of the results. The rest is history. True story.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The bit I highlighted does not gel with your earlier paragraph of why you joined here (which does make sense).

Hey, I get it - you like Wiggins, nothing wrong with that per se but following a rider and your mention of nationalism puts them of higher importance than the sport and means you cannot have an unbiased view on anti-doping.

That was more a general point about following the sport rather than why I post here. you can't love a football, you can love a bike. I have six or seven in various states of build. when I'm not riding them I'm tinkering with them, when i'm not tinkering with them I'm watching people race them, when I'm not doing that, although often while i'm doing that, i'll come online and talk about it. this isn't the only forum i go to, and this isn't the only discourse I have about racing.

So from loving bikes, everything else flows from that.

And actually I'm quite ambivalent about Wiggins. He does and says a lot that pi$$ me off, and other things I like. I question his motivation and professionalism, he's not quite wired right for the gig. I'm more a 'fan' of riders like Stannard and Thomas, but mainly Cav. Love that kid, love watching him ride.

But when you see riders that you are ambivalent about under attack, and here too often mocking, sneering attack, a senseof justice kicks in and you feel honour-bound to provide a balance. Posters get very frivolous very quickly, posting pictures of riders on holiday smoking a roll-up, or wearing a suit, or playing a quitar, or falling off a bike, laughing at them, calling them childish names to deride them. none of it is relevant, it is petty indulgence of personal bias. And because you react to that, you get called names too. I have no time or respect for those petty games, this one-upmanship so I call people on it.

But people like to put people into camps: it's black or white here, if you're not for us you're against us. Quite frankly I'm just interested in seeing the outcome, and seeing the sport get better and cleaner. I don't claim to be unbiased, but you may notice I don't throw accusations around. I generally give the same benefit of the doubt to riders of other countries too.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I was first motivated to start posting on a cycling forum because I was watching the TdF and Cadel was wheel sucking, so I typed "Cadel Evans is a wheel sucking pu**y" into Google, and cyclingforums.com came up at the top of the results. The rest is history. True story.

This made me laugh. As I said, knowledge and wit. Mostly wit though

 

[Benotti69]

But your solutions miss the important point.

Longer bans, well just how long? And to serve a ban people have to be caught

If you were banned for a min 4 years your career is essentially over. That would be 1st offence. 2nd offence lifetime. Also anyone banned would not be allowed to be a DS or coach. This does not stop doping. It makes someone think long and hard about doping. Too many have come back to soon.

- which brings us to testing. On the other thread you complain that Ashenden said the BP was BS (he didn't but....) - if you have no faith in the testing what would more testing do?

If you are tested every 2nd week. Then it is hard to dope. The cost, paid for by the teams. Ashenden said the BP was BS because riders were not being tested and not enough data was being collected to make it work.

TUE - so no one can have a cold? Asthmatics are sidelined?

Yep. Seems everyone in the peloton has a TUE for every race. Asthmatics like Petacchi. If you have asthma and it means you need medication to race that is a PED in my book.

How do you criminalize a sport? And have it in every country?

You criminlize doping, handling PEDs etc. Make it a crime with a big fine. Again a deterrent.

As for every country, if the federations were truly anti doping they would lobby Brussels and get a EU law passed as a start. Most of the racing is European. Other western nations would quickly follow. They could also introduce a condition to racing licenses about where riders need to be and for what period. Ie in EU for most of the season with exceptions being a min of 3 days in another country prior to a race.

Enough deterrents, they need to be enforced, will have the required effect. But if the deterrents are not policed as is the current status doping continues.

Di Luca and Santambrogio were targetted or 'policed' in my opinion. Di Luca was not wanted back in the sport. Vini fantini for letting him ride the Giro.

But i am a mere sofa fan and i am sure that there are bigger and better brains out there to offer better solutions.

Start a seperate thread, if we dont have one already, about how to reduce doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That was more a general point about following the sport rather than why I post here. you can't love a football, you can love a bike. I have six or seven in various states of build. when I'm not riding them I'm tinkering with them, when i'm not tinkering with them I'm watching people race them, when I'm not doing that, although often while i'm doing that, i'll come online and talk about it. this isn't the only forum i go to, and this isn't the only discourse I have about racing.

So from loving bikes, everything else flows from that.

And actually I'm quite ambivalent about Wiggins. He does and says a lot that pi$$ me off, and other things I like. I question his motivation and professionalism, he's not quite wired right for the gig. I'm more a 'fan' of riders like Stannard and Thomas, but mainly Cav. Love that kid, love watching him ride.

But when you see riders that you are ambivalent about under attack, and here too often mocking, sneering attack, a senseof justice kicks in and you feel honour-bound to provide a balance. Posters get very frivolous very quickly, posting pictures of riders on holiday smoking a roll-up, or wearing a suit, or playing a quitar, or falling off a bike, laughing at them, calling them childish names to deride them. none of it is relevant, it is petty indulgence of personal bias. And because you react to that, you get called names too. I have no time or respect for those petty games, this one-upmanship so I call people on it.

But people like to put people into camps: it's black or white here, if you're not for us you're against us. Quite frankly I'm just interested in seeing the outcome, and seeing the sport get better and cleaner. I don't claim to be unbiased, but you may notice I don't throw accusations around. I generally give the same benefit of the doubt to riders of other countries too.

Am, you mentioned Cancellara in your previous post.

Again, why does it bother you that someone posts a pic of Wiggins smoking?
Would it bother you if it was Cancellara?
I am not looking for an answer - its obvious, and it is also the very reason some will bait you.

As for the rest - I actually like Wiggins to a point, and there are plenty of riders I do like - but their personality has little to do with if i believe they are doping or not.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But your solutions miss the important point.

Longer bans, well just how long? And to serve a ban people have to be caught

If you were banned for a min 4 years your career is essentially over. That would be 1st offence. 2nd offence lifetime. Also anyone banned would not be allowed to be a DS or coach. This does not stop doping. It makes someone think long and hard about doping. Too many have come back to soon.



If you are tested every 2nd week. Then it is hard to dope. The cost, paid for by the teams. Ashenden said the BP was BS because riders were not being tested and not enough data was being collected to make it work.



Yep. Seems everyone in the peloton has a TUE for every race. Asthmatics like Petacchi. If you have asthma and it means you need medication to race that is a PED in my book.



You criminlize doping, handling PEDs etc. Make it a crime with a big fine. Again a deterrent.

As for every country, if the federations were truly anti doping they would lobby Brussels and get a EU law passed as a start. Most of the racing is European. They could also introduce a condition to racing licenses about where riders need to be and for what period. Ie in EU for most of the season with exceptions being a min of 3 days in another country prior to a race.

Enough deterrents, they need to be enforced, will have the required effect. But if the deterrents are not policed as is the current status doping continues.

Di Luca and Santambrogio were targetted or 'policed' in my opinion. Di Luca was not wanted back in the sport. Vini fantini for letting him ride the Giro.

But i am a mere sofa fan and i am sure that there are bigger and better brains out there to offer better solutions.

Start a seperate thread, if we dont have one already, about how to reduce doping.

You keep missing the point.

Let me ask you a simple question? Fat Pat puts each and everyone of your suggestions in to his manifesto and launches it tomorrow.

This will please you, yes?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This is actually evolving into a good topic. Good job James.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Great post Jimmy!

I actually agree with this:

TBH I really believe that from certain quarters there is a fierce determination that Sky are doping, that if you disagree you just get shouted down. These people want them to be doping, are desperate for them to be doping. And this stems from Lance's legacy.

Or it just stems from them really not liking the team or the riders.

I don't want anyone to be doping. My personal feelings towards a rider doesn't affect my opinion of them on whether they are clean or dirty.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

TBH I really believe that from certain quarters there is a fierce determination that Sky are doping, that if you disagree you just get shouted down. These people want them to be doping, are desperate for them to be doping. And this stems from Lance's legacy.

Or it just stems from them really not liking the team or the riders.

I don't want anyone to be doping. My personal feelings towards a rider doesn't affect my opinion of them on whether they are clean or dirty.

Name them.

 

[Benotti69]

You keep missing the point.

Let me ask you a simple question? Fat Pat puts each and everyone of your suggestions in to his manifesto and launches it tomorrow.

This will please you, yes?

Where did I mention McQuaid? In the McQuaid thread of course.

No it wouldn't.

Do I think Cookson is any better? Not really. He has been a long time part of the UCI and not once put his head above the parapet. Where was his dossier in 2009 to prevent Armstrong getting back. Why was he not leaking info to journalists like Kimmage a long time ago. He is a UCI man, not a stupid as Pat but equally as corrupt no doubt.

I have always stated the obvious of UCI needs to be changed and anti doping independent. But I would make it independent and a crime to dope.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Am, you mentioned Cancellara in your previous post.

Again, why does it bother you that someone posts a pic of Wiggins smoking?
Would it bother you if it was Cancellara?
I am not looking for an answer - its obvious, and it is also the very reason some will bait you.

As for the rest - I actually like Wiggins to a point, and there are plenty of riders I do like - but their personality has little to do with if i believe they are doping or not.

I like Cancellara. I hope he rides clean, there are a lot of people that would be very disappointed if he got popped. I mentioned him as a rider that many suspect as a doper but is admired nonetheless for his riding, his swashbuckling, powerful style.

And yes, if someone posted a paparazzi-style picture of him doing something unrelated to cycling or the subject matter of the clinic, I would call him on it.

You can't see inside someone's soul from what the words they post here.

To the bolded, I agree with 100%