Interesting Observations

limerickman

Kate,

I'm never one to boast about palmares and I certainly wouldn't use that argument with anyone else on this entire site - except for one person and she
knows who she is.

This particular individual I addressed with this question, is very very disingenuous.
When you've got to go full bore - you go full bore, Kate - trust me on this one.

philoakley

I am amazed at the sensitivity of some contributors, It's as if they've been accused of doping themselves. Limerickman's contribution was entirely innocent but also very thought provoking. We live in a world where it is so easy to accept situations and not to question how or why. Keep on observing Limerickman!

gntlmn

Where have I said that you made that claim? Again, you fail to read what I write to you. I was responding to what you wrote, and again, you don't listen.

What I'm saying is that you are observing the media and it's fascination with the drug issue. It's how they generate interest/revenue, by continually insinuating that athletes are doping. You jump on this very same bandwagon because you see how much controversy it generates, and then you just pour fuel onto the flame.

The media is overblowing the doping issue, and you are too. Do they focus on the fact that only a tiny fraction of athletes are doping? No! They keep projecting, without evidence, the deeds of a few on the shoulders of many. They have no evidence for such claims, nor do you. It's like being superstitious. Some people, such as yourself, will never be dissuaded.

gntlmn

You frequently use the palmares argument against Lance Armstrong as well. You say that he's not such a great cyclist as some former greats because he does not have such an impressive palmares. This argument is akin to saying that someone who wins the 100 meters (track) at the Olympics is not all that great because he didn't participate in a local meet in your hometown last week. It's kind of a manipulative ploy, this whole palmares issue. You use it against the athletes' natural tendency to want to be the best in the best race and earn the most income the sport has to offer. You would prefer that they water down their talents to bring more income to the other events. I don't have a problem with the best athletes avoiding lesser known and less prestigious competitions to be in their best form for the grandest.

As for impressive palmares, if you fall for the doping pervasiveness argument, as you seem to, those with the most impressive palmares are most likely to be the ones doing the most doping. Otherwise, their performance would suffer. So I don't know why you would use palmares as a badge of honor. Even if it isn't a result of doping, an impressive palmares likely will lead to an earlier retirement. The undrugged body needs to rest.

limerickman

I am not getting in to a discussion about doping with you or Musette on this thread - is this understood ?

Messages 2 and 4 are from you and Musette respectively on this thread.
On message 4 you waded in with and I quote "How do you come to the conclusion that the wider public outside of the cycling public perceives that men/women who cycle are using substances to enable them to do so?" and
launched ina diatribe about drugs/doping/statistics of the number of people who believe that there is widepsread doping.

You and Musette - brought up the subject of doping on this thread, and in message 3 I said I was not discussing doping and I repeated this claim in several messages on this thread subsequently.

limerickman

Please see message 20 : this thread was not created by me to discuss
drugs or doping.
I twas created to show people in this Forum how the wider (non-cycling)
public view our sport.

I will discuss doping with you elsewhere but not here (see my message 3,
6 and 20 on this thread) !

gntlmn

This post was limerickman's response to his claim in another thread that the general public outside of the cycling public perceives that doping is pervasive in the sport. I pointed out to him on that thread that this pervasiveness is mostly a media fascination, not a result of a stretch of the general public's imagination. He chooses to distort the issue and post here instead, his "observations", cleverly including the doping comments by a member of the press.

To conclude that the media fascination with the drug issue is an indication that the general public is convinced of pervasive drug use in cycling is not at all a foregone conclusion, and yet lim equates these as one and the same.

limerickman

Can you do me a favour ?

Just forget about doping for one moment and read message 1.
There is NO mention of doping or drugs.

So stand back and read what I posted in message 1 and the respond.
Don't link other comments in other thread to this thread (this is what I have asked you do in message 20,21).
Then when you've considered message 1 - perhaps you'd give us your view ?

Jakebrake

The latest Bicycling magazine has an interesting story "A Gold Day in Hell", it takes a look at the course and what the riders are going to be up against. Very challenging is the impression I get.

gntlmn

You opened up the doping discussion with your opening post. Don't expect to be able to slip information past us without a response.

gntlmn

But what you are doing is not showing how the wider (non-cycling) public view our sport. Instead, you are showing how the media views our sport. These are two different issues, and yet you treat them as one.

gntlmn

Maybe you might say a little more about this article. "Information at your fingertips" is giving me a little bit of trouble. Google gives me nothing. I didn't expect it to, actually. Otherwise, it might be a while before I get to the library and check out the mags there, provided I remember to look.

Saucy

Tis true. During the last month I've spoken with friends, family and even co-workers about the TDF and I managed to work the drug issue into the conversation. Almost everyone thought that cycling is rife with drugs. None of these people follow cycling, they don't know about the history or the multitude of scandals.

Its easy to dismiss their beliefs by citing their ignorance of cycling. But even if one were to believe that the sport is clean (which it isn't) the fact remains that there is a serious perception problem in the sport. Even if the public is wrong, then shouldn't cycling make attempts to correct their perception?

People are no longer naiive about the drug issue. I should point out that this isn't just about cycling. Everyone knows it goes on in all sports. To me, this isn't even worth debating. I think its common knowledge that cycling, along with track&field, swimming and any other endurance sport is widely believed to have a drug problem. I think this knowledge has been more advanced in Europe but I think in the US now the blinders are completely off.

What I find interesting is that since '98 TDF, the popularity of the TDF and road racing in general has actually increased. Is this solely because of Lance or is it due to the scandals themselves? Are people watching for the salacious aspect of the drug scandals? Or do fans just not care anymore whether cyclists are doping?

gntlmn

Well clearly the amount of media coverage to doping is completely blown out of proportion with the actual problem, as testing suggests. This media distortion, which is a result of always giving press to the doped athletes and not an equal amount of press to each and every other non doped athlete, does not ebb. And then you have people like Lim wanting to jump on the bandwagon and make more mountains out of molehills. You'd think every rider and his brother was about to keel over from a drug overdose if you listen to his tirades.

This is why you might have people who know nothing of the sport wondering whether riders are doping. They hear these stories because the press knows they sell newspapers and newscasts. The reporters don't tell them that these stories represent less than 1 out of 1,000 professional riders in the peloton. And where's the equal press? It's not there. Now talk about bias. This is a case where an individual story is not biased because it tells the truth about a rider who doped, but it is also a case where, in the entirety of news coverage, the bias is plainly evident. If they gave equal coverage to all the non doped riders, there simply wouldn't be enough newsprint to write it all down. So they don't do it. They know that doesn't sell news.