Why?

[blackcat]

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 pleonasm cogency. The Clinic 12 have minimal cred with the rational and reasonable majority aka deluded rubes. They are legends <strikethrough>in their own minds</strikethrough> only!

in their own lunchboxes

maple leaf? nah. fig leaf.

 

[Benotti69]

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!

Is doping a rational act?

Amazing how many posters who oppose, dislike and slag off the clinic ignore what the sport is full of. Dopers, ex dopers, doping doctors, federations that failed to act and continue fail to act, a UCI that takes bribes and accepted back dated TUEs after positives, tried to hide a GT winners positive.....ad infinitum.

I would like to see some rational in the current peloton.

The clinic 12 does not exist. It was Vaughters spitting his dummy who said there were only 12 apostles in the clinic. It became the 'Clinic 12' very quickly.

If the clinic was so unimportant to the sport, why are there so many posting about Sky defending them same as before Armstrong got his lifetime ban, so many defending him in the clinic, which posters love to say is of no importance.

Not buying.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Is doping a rational act?

Amazing how many posters who oppose, dislike and slag off the clinic ignore what the sport is full of. Dopers, ex dopers, doping doctors, federations that failed to act and continue fail to act, a UCI that takes bribes and accepted back dated TUEs after positives, tried to hide a GT winners positive.....ad infinitum.

I would like to see some rational in the current peloton.

The clinic 12 does not exist. It was Vaughters spitting his dummy who said there were only 12 apostles in the clinic. It became the 'Clinic 12' very quickly.

If the clinic was so unimportant to the sport, why are there so many posting about Sky defending them same as before Armstrong got his lifetime ban, so many defending him in the clinic, which posters love to say is of no importance.

Not buying.

I broadly agree with the highlighted.
But that shows that doping is a systematic problem, not an individual one.

Yet you keep berating the likes of JV, the riders etc when you appear to know that it is a systematic problem.

 

[Taxus4a]

Is doping a rational act?

Amazing how many posters who oppose, dislike and slag off the clinic ignore what the sport is full of. Dopers, ex dopers, doping doctors, federations that failed to act and continue fail to act, a UCI that takes bribes and accepted back dated TUEs after positives, tried to hide a GT winners positive.....ad infinitum.

I would like to see some rational in the current peloton.

The clinic 12 does not exist. It was Vaughters spitting his dummy who said there were only 12 apostles in the clinic. It became the 'Clinic 12' very quickly.

If the clinic was so unimportant to the sport, why are there so many posting about Sky defending them same as before Armstrong got his lifetime ban, so many defending him in the clinic, which posters love to say is of no importance.

Not buying.

As I said, I didnt defend Lance, but there is an important difference, the evidence againt US postal or Lance was that it was a demostrated doping era, their main rivals were demostrated strong doped, and there were as well demostrated strong riders, performing records into the climbs, and now it is not.

You can see similitudes, but there are important differences, and evidences that things have changed.

 

[Taxus4a]

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.

And that people must understand that if they do that, others could do the same in the other way.

 

[Benotti69]

I broadly agree with the highlighted.
But that shows that doping is a systematic problem, not an individual one.

Yet you keep berating the likes of JV, the riders etc when you appear to know that it is a systematic problem.

They are all part of the problem or part of the solution. It is their choice. JV is not doing enough and I do not trust that his team is CLEAN. They may be cleanER, which is what he continues to argue, but that is not CLEAN.

I think in my posts i mention that the sport as a whole has to change before it can be considered truly cleanER where the dopers are a tiny minority. I think clean riders are a tiny minority and then i couldn't name them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They are all part of the problem or part of the solution. It is their choice. JV is not doing enough and I do not trust that his team is CLEAN. They may be cleanER, which is what he continues to argue, but that is not CLEAN.

I think in my posts i mention that the sport as a whole has to change before it can be considered truly cleanER where the dopers are a tiny minority. I think clean riders are a tiny minority and then i couldn't name them.

Your second paragraph states clean riders are a tiny minority - so the default is doper.

Then why blame or even mention JV (who merely runs a team) even if his team are doing what the majority do?
And how would a team owner manage to change a sports problem?

 

[Benotti69]

Your second paragraph states clean riders are a tiny minority - so the default is doper.

Then why blame or even mention JV (who merely runs a team) even if his team are doing what the majority do?

I dont blame JV. I criticise him as he posts in the clinic. I also criticise others that dont post in the clinic.

And how would a team owner manage to change a sports problem?

He cant. So please tell him to take the halo off as it clashes with his argyle.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I dont blame JV. I criticise him as he posts in the clinic. I also criticise others that dont post in the clinic.



He cant. So please tell him to take the halo off as it clashes with his argyle.

So why criticize him? (Or anyone else).
If you acknowledge that it's a systematic problem then why would JVs input here make any difference to you?


And here is a question - what in Benottis world would suggest that cycling is becoming clean, cleaner or whatever way you wish to describe it - genuine question.

 

[Benotti69]

So why criticize him? (Or anyone else).
If you acknowledge that it's a systematic problem then why would JVs input here make any difference to you?

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

And here is a question - what in Benottis world would suggest that cycling is becoming clean, cleaner or whatever way you wish to describe it - genuine question.

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.

 

[kingjr]

I think in my posts i mention that the sport as a whole has to change before it can be considered truly cleanER where the dopers are a tiny minority

Forget it you will never get there.
Ideally the sport would be cleanER (in comparison to his worst era which we have indeed left for the moment) if

1.) there are no undetectable Superdrugs, or other doping methods that can turn donkeys into racehorses
2.) clean Riders can win big races (including a GT)

That's the best you can hope for. Ever.

 

[King Boonen]

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 hope you're happy with a sub-set because the highlighted one is utterly ridiculous.

I disagree with no team doctors and no TUEs, but would like to see stricter rules, and agree with longer bans and more testing (but I don't know if the money exists for more testing).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

But your solutions miss the important point.

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

TUE - so no one can have a cold? Asthmatics are sidelined?
How do you criminalize a sport? And have it in every country?

 

[ToreBear]

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.

I would guess It's easier to say clinic when you mean Benotti, hoggy etc. Benotti and hoggy are those I recognize as most prominently saying the same things over and over. And they post a lot and there seems to be little variance in their posts.

Benotti In my mind just says the same thing over and over, while hoggy can be quite funny. So I notice Hoggy more than Benotti likely because I sometimes don't bother to read his posts(it's usually the same thing).

It's my impression that they start things rolling and others hop on the band wagon.

It's very hard to argue when ball starts rolling because so many nonsensical posts come up.

I remember this from last week in the Froome thread.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17756&page=114
post #2276
Taxus4a a had taken the time to write about Froomes history. This has been discussed ad naseum earlier in the thread and the sky thread without anything but new arguments and pictures of Froomes forehead and what not. I seem to remember some insults, and accusations of him being a troll as well. They might have been deleted by the mods, I don't know, I might be mixing events aswell.

I wonder how many actually took the time to read it. It's long. Personally I'we so far only read until 2010. I will read the rest soon.

The point is it seemed to me that the attack dogs were after him for daring to argue that he might be clean.

There seemed to be little or no arguments about the blogs contents.

And then came the pictures of Froomes forehead, and the tread went on.



The next example is David Walsh, from hero to zero because he is embedded with sky.

And then Race Radio talks about having dinner with Porte, and IIRC in another thread talked about not having any indication they were doping.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18726&page=55
#1098

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1254362#post1254362
#1345

And now Race Radio seems to have betrayed the cause.


And we have the accusations of being skybots because one argues against them doping.

I'm starting to get a general idea of how things work:
If you say someone is doping outside the clinic you get a ban.
If you say someone is clean in the clinic you get trolled.

And there seems to be a special animosity towards sky among some posters. I'm not sure if they are convinced they are doping, or there is something else about them that gets them riled up without themselves being aware of it.

Well, I just aired my frustrations, anyway. I have hopes that discussions could make a little more sense and not descend into pictures of froomes forehead.

Now I have yet to understand the concept of trolling, and I understand this forum has had trouble with sockpuppets. I just read the arguments a poster makes and judges by that, and leave it to those with a nose for those to take it to the mods.

Anyway I have the impression that accusations of sockpuppet or trolling are more likely to come in relation to posters arguing against doping.

It could of course be my own bias that distorts my perception, but could it also be that those speaking against the tide in this forum illicits a certain pattern of responses?


Well Zam you just got my confession. I think you are Italian, and all Italians are catholics. Catholic priests take confessions. Hence all Italians are catholic priests.

 

[Froome19]

I would guess It's easier to say clinic when you mean Benotti, hoggy etc. Benotti and hoggy are those I recognize as most prominently saying the same things over and over. And they post a lot and there seems to be little variance in their posts.

Benotti In my mind just says the same thing over and over, while hoggy can be quite funny. So I notice Hoggy more than Benotti likely because I sometimes don't bother to read his posts(it's usually the same thing).

It's my impression that they start things rolling and others hop on the band wagon.

It's very hard to argue when ball starts rolling because so many nonsensical posts come up.

I remember this from last week in the Froome thread.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17756&page=114
post #2276
Taxus4a a had taken the time to write about Froomes history. This has been discussed ad naseum earlier in the thread and the sky thread without anything but new arguments and pictures of Froomes forehead and what not. I seem to remember some insults, and accusations of him being a troll as well. They might have been deleted by the mods, I don't know, I might be mixing events aswell.

I wonder how many actually took the time to read it. It's long. Personally I'we so far only read until 2010. I will read the rest soon.

The point is it seemed to me that the attack dogs were after him for daring to argue that he might be clean.

There seemed to be little or no arguments about the blogs contents.

And then came the pictures of Froomes forehead, and the tread went on.



The next example is David Walsh, from hero to zero because he is embedded with sky.

And then Race Radio talks about having dinner with Porte, and IIRC in another thread talked about not having any indication they were doping.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18726&page=55
#1098

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1254362#post1254362
#1345

And now Race Radio seems to have betrayed the cause.


And we have the accusations of being skybots because one argues against them doping.

I'm starting to get a general idea of how things work:
If you say someone is doping outside the clinic you get a ban.
If you say someone is clean in the clinic you get trolled.

And there seems to be a special animosity towards sky among some posters. I'm not sure if they are convinced they are doping, or there is something else about them that gets them riled up without themselves being aware of it.

Well, I just aired my frustrations, anyway. I have hopes that discussions could make a little more sense and not descend into pictures of froomes forehead.

Now I have yet to understand the concept of trolling, and I understand this forum has had trouble with sockpuppets. I just read the arguments a poster makes and judges by that, and leave it to those with a nose for those to take it to the mods.

Anyway I have the impression that accusations of sockpuppet or trolling are more likely to come in relation to posters arguing against doping.

It could of course be my own bias that distorts my perception, but could it also be that those speaking against the tide in this forum illicits a certain pattern of responses?


Well Zam you just got my confession. I think you are Italian, and all Italians are catholics. Catholic priests take confessions. Hence all Italians are catholic priests.

Well that is quite a good, if long winded, summary of things here..

 

[blackcat]

I dont blame JV. I criticise him as he posts in the clinic. I also criticise others that dont post in the clinic.



He cant. So please tell him to take the halo off as it clashes with his argyle.

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.

 

[ToreBear]

Well that is quite a good, if long winded, summary of things here..

Thanks! I tend to be a bit diplomatic, and that leads to long posts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

So, what is this "barrier of entry"?

 

[blackcat]

So, what is this "barrier of entry"?

you must accept doping, and culture of intransigence/acceptance

many like bassons have been run out of the sport because they refused to partake. or were despondent in the autobus

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you must accept doping, and culture of intransigence/acceptance

many like bassons have been run out of the sport because they refused to partake. or were despondent in the autobus

If the barrier for entry is that you must accept doping - why are many so vocal against it?

 

[blackcat]

If the barrier for entry is that you must accept doping - why are many so vocal against it?

fans when the gauze is removed from their eyes and they are revealed the true nature of professional cycling

 

[andy1234]

you must accept doping, and culture of intransigence/acceptance

many like bassons have been run out of the sport because they refused to partake. or were despondent in the autobus

This is plainly and simply not true any more.
It was also never the case in certain teams.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

fans when the gauze is removed from their eyes and they are revealed the true nature of professional cycling

See, this doesn't make sense.

You wrote this at the start:

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.

....

 

[blackcat]

dichotomy

inside outside

we are outsiders. perhaps few have staked positions. jv, 131313, RR.

insiders = pro peloton.

is this explanation sufficient?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

dichotomy

inside outside

we are outsiders. perhaps few have staked positions. jv, 131313, RR.

insiders = pro peloton.

is this explanation sufficient?

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'.