Tumbleweed Posted May 23, 2011 Share How can you report on something without some sort of corroboration? If you do, surely you're just slandering someone? But is a positive test the only corroboration you need? What if a person's doping has been corroborated by, say, three riders close to him? Would that be enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted May 23, 2011 Share Grumps - you're guilty of your own acusations here - you're judging me here... Interesting no? My point was that it is possible to cycle, work, carve a career etc without having to break the law. I have and I'm guessing pretty much every poster on this forum gets through work everyday without breaking the law. My opinion is that this soft assed "welcome them back with open arms" approach is effectively condoning doping. I'm guessing Tyler sold his story to 60 minutes, he was able to sell it to 60 minutes because he was famous, he was famous because he took drugs. Still making money from doping post cycling? Great aint it? Imagine if being caught doping meant jail time, losing your house and the general scorn of the entire cycling world... I'm guessing it would solve most of the problem. It does here in the real world - how many of you out there defraud, steal and cheat at your place of work on a daily basis? +1Hypocrites? WRT to the likes of Millar, Landis, Hamilton etc... They all "came clean" only once they were caught and there was no other way out. Now they are all trying to ride the "reborn clean cyclist" route. Pffft!! to them, how anyone can say they came clean I dont know, they were busted and then later when there was no way out they "come clean" and everyone thinks they are hereos....come on talk about sheep people. The latest version of this hypocritical behaviour is from the Albertus Contador fanboy club, here's a rider who originaly was linked to the operation Puerto doping scandal (he was later cleared....)and more recently tested positive for Clenbuterol and most likely will be cleared for this as well.... Hypocrites unite National anthem:Baa baa hub sheep.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaLoCo Posted May 23, 2011 Share But is a positive test the only corroboration you need? What if a person's doping has been corroborated by, say, three riders close to him? Would that be enough? I would suspect that the doping timelines claimed by the whistle blowers coincides with clean tests (just speculating) otherwise the confirmation by the witnesses would have been enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Imagine if being caught doping meant jail time, losing your house and the general scorn of the entire cycling world... I'm guessing it would solve most of the problem. It does here in the real world - how many of you out there defraud, steal and cheat at your place of work on a daily basis? Wouldn't solve anything. People will always cheat. They do in every walk of life. Secondly, the grand tours are too physically demanding to complete in their current format on bananas and mineral water alone. Thirdly, if the organisers make the races easier, and the guys can complete them without doping, the spectacle of the sport will end, and sponsors will leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EigerSA Posted May 23, 2011 Share But is a positive test the only corroboration you need? What if a person's doping has been corroborated by, say, three riders close to him? Would that be enough? Well I guess you'd have to examine the motives of the guy making the accusations. I would consider that ok, only if the other 3 riders were themselves clean and above suspicion. What does "Journalism Ethics 101" have to say on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted May 23, 2011 Share Wouldn't solve anything. People will always cheat. They do in every walk of life. Secondly, the grand tours are too physically demanding to complete in their current format on bananas and mineral water alone. Thirdly, if the organisers make the races easier, and the guys can complete them without doping, the spectacle of the sport will end, and sponsors will leave. I disagree... 1) The harsher the penalty the lower the crime. It may not stamp it out completely but it will certainly deter more people when the penalty is a destitute family rather than a 2 year break...2) You can compete the Tour in it's present form on bananas and water. Hell the tour was infinitely more tough when it started and all they had back then was cocains, champagne and uppers...3) The tour would just be slower - no one would leave. Only a few anoraks care what the average speed of the tour was - everyone only cares who won and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted May 23, 2011 Share Well I guess you'd have to examine the motives of the guy making the accusations. I would consider that ok, only if the other 3 riders were themselves clean and above suspicion. What does "Journalism Ethics 101" have to say on the matter? Journalism what? There are no ethics in journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted May 23, 2011 Share I disagree... 1) The harsher the penalty the lower the crime. It may not stamp it out completely but it will certainly deter more people when the penalty is a destitute family rather than a 2 year break...2) You can compete the Tour in it's present form on bananas and water. Hell the tour was infinitely more tough when it started and all they had back then was cocains, champagne and uppers...3) The tour would just be slower - no one would leave. Only a few anoraks care what the average speed of the tour was - everyone only cares who won and lost. 1. That's like the death penalty argument. I don't buy it.2. There is so much racing in the year, the pro tour level guys cannot. On this very forum, there is a thread lambasting some for pulling out of tours early and stuff. The pressure to perform from Jan to Dec year after year is immense. Years ago, most pro's didn't even get on a bike till April, and the season was over by September.3. I'm not talking about the average speed, I'm talking about 70000 spectators on Monte Zoncolan. No drugs means half the peleton would have gotten off and walked up the hill, no one wants to watch that. I don't pay my dstv to watch the okes coming in in 10023 place at the argus, or watch the guy doing a 11hour comrades. Edited May 23, 2011 by TNT1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted May 23, 2011 Share Well I guess you'd have to examine the motives of the guy making the accusations. I would consider that ok, only if the other 3 riders were themselves clean and above suspicion. What does "Journalism Ethics 101" have to say on the matter? In Lance's case, you would look at him as already being fair game as he is already under investigation, and the prosecution believes he has a case to answer. You wouldn't require the results of any test to proceed with a story. The only ethical consideration would be to present the allegations to the accused and give him the right to reply. Journalism what? There are no ethics in journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted May 23, 2011 Share 3. I'm not talking about the average speed, I'm talking about 70000 spectators on Monte Zoncolan. No drugs means half the peleton would have gotten off and walked up the hill, no one wants to watch that. I don't pay my dstv to watch the okes coming in in 10023 place at the argus, or watch the guy doing a 11hour comrades. Agree with #1 and #2 Now #3 - I would pay a lot to see Albertus, Lance, whoever get off his bike, chuck his cycling shoes over the edge and walk to the top pushing his bike, while the DS is lambasting him through the team car window.... Beats the usual pattern we see of the pro's riding up those monster hills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Agree with #1 and #2 Now #3 - I would pay a lot to see Albertus, Lance, whoever get off his bike, chuck his cycling shoes over the edge and walk to the top pushing his bike, while the DS is lambasting him through the team car window.... Beats the usual pattern we see of the pro's riding up those monster hills. Fair enough, but can he chuck his bike over the edge, and be forced to walk up in his cycling shoes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EigerSA Posted May 23, 2011 Share In Lance's case, you would look at him as already being fair game as he is already under investigation, and the prosecution believes he has a case to answer. You wouldn't require the results of any test to proceed with a story. The only ethical consideration would be to present the allegations to the accused and give him the right to reply. Fair enough, but then you should also report accurately on the number of tests he has undergone since the start of his career, as well as the number of positives/negatives he's had, to me that's fair and ethical, it presents both sides of the story. The accused also has the right not too reply, which could harm his reputation to some degree as well, in which case I would argue the journalist has an even deeper responsibility to present both sides fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Fair enough, but then you should also report accurately on the number of tests he has undergone since the start of his career, More than all the other athletes in all the other sports in all the world combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted May 23, 2011 Share Fair enough, but can he chuck his bike over the edge, and be forced to walk up in his cycling shoes? Yes... hell they could all take lessons from John Mcenroe, imagine how popular cycling would become then...millions of peoples would be tuning in just for a laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtr1 Posted May 23, 2011 Share How do you determine what is illegal/cheating and what is not. There is a list of banned substances and if you get caught using any of them you are deemed to be cheating and are potentially banned. Now if you take something that is not on the list, enhances your performance....is that illegal or cheating. Bjarne Rijs admitted to using EPO when he won The Tour. At the time though, nobody, other than sportpeople and doctors, knew about it and what it's effects were. It was not on the banned substance list. Does that make Bjarne Rijs a cheat ? So the question then is, Lance may have taken PED's over his career along with many other sportspeople. He got tested and found clean. Only thing is, there were no tests at the time for the drug he/they were taking, and as a result, did not appear on the banned list. Does that make you guilty or not guilty ????? I reckon all the good dopers are ahead of the game, taking stuff not yet known about or not yet on the banned list and as a result there is no way to test for it. And as long as there is money in sport, the dopers will stay ahead of the testers. If Lance was so positive about never having doped, he would then allow the authorities to test all his old samples with the latest tests and see what pops up. His defense can then be, well I took supplements but they were not banned. This I think is closer to reality. What if........in a year or 2, some scientific test proves that Energade is performance enhancing.....which it is, what happens to everybody who ever had some in their bottle or had a drink of it ? Also one must question what is "performance enhancing" ? Anything that enhances your performance is performance enhancing. So a recovery drink enhances your performance the next day ??????????? As this would be so difficult to monitor control and test, we get back to the banned list and then, well, did Lance etc cheat or not ??????? By the way, I am not a Lance fan. I just believe that most or all of the cyclists, as well as other top sportspeople, have doped at some stage and will continue to do so. I have seen evidence of it locally in races as well as the cover-up's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaLoCo Posted May 23, 2011 Share Agree with #1 and #2 Now #3 - I would pay a lot to see Albertus, Lance, whoever get off his bike, chuck his cycling shoes over the edge and walk to the top pushing his bike, while the DS is lambasting him through the team car window.... Beats the usual pattern we see of the pro's riding up those monster hills. At least the dude in the chicken suit, or g-string, or whatever will be able to stay with them up the hills..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now