Is anyone clean?

a écrit :
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On 7 Jun 2006 09:38:37 -0700, wrote:


It's a waste of my time more than
anything and it gives me no reason to watch or care. And on some level
that is sad. The fact that so many accept it and either give in or
watch anyway is sad, IMHO.

OK, fine. Stop watching for chrissakes. We can always use rbr as a
place to deal with our sadness that the rest of us continue to watch.
Or not. Or can't watch. Whichever. Whatever.


But I want to be able to watch the sport, a clean sport. Why does that
make me the target of such unbelievable vitriol?


Oh yeah, by the way, most of us don't give a rats ass what your
opinion about us watching happens to be. Did anyone get to that fact
yet? Now if you can give us a reliable feed to watch Euro bike racing,
feel free to drop us a line...


Anger issues much?


Hell, I hope when I give up alcohol I don't spend a week talking about
it and just go in a corner some place and drown my sorrows. Quietly.


I've spent maybe 10 minutes max. Popping in and out. It seems that
those defending the dopers or who don't care spend a lot more time
talking about this. Not to mention a lot more anger, rage and general
discontent. You should give up alcohol. Take up Valium, perhaps.

Preston


You didn't quite get the gentle part of Curtis' point. He, as many of
us, is deeply disappointed - feels betrayed - by the riders who are out
to make a living, and who care nothing for "sport" as one may be taught
the word means. I was just doing laps, when a guy who is really strong
rode past a bunch of us, 5-6 km/h faster. I joked that he was doped -
others took me seriously, and it took me a long time to explain that I
was joking. But the reaction was not about how it was unfair, but how
it seemed that doping is the only means to make a step up. Sad again,
disappointed again, that being on the front was all that matters. I
don't get to the front too often these days, but my racing days are 30
years in the past. I also never say racing as an income source. But
the pros do. So long as there are *any* rules, you can count on
cheating. Sorry.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

wrote:
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

OK, fine. Stop watching for chrissakes. We can always use rbr as a
place to deal with our sadness that the rest of us continue to watch.
Or not. Or can't watch. Whichever. Whatever.

But I want to be able to watch the sport, a clean sport. Why does that
make me the target of such unbelievable vitriol?

Maybe it was because you started off by suggesting that
the fact that people didn't share your particular expression of
outrage was "sad," and insinuated that your moral compass
pointed to a truer north than others'.

Also, for rbr, this is relatively polite vitriol. We like our vitriol
straight up or on the rocks, not diluted and with a paper
umbrella in it.

If you just want people to agree with you and congratulate
you on your uprightness, starting threads on Usenet is not
the best way to do it.


Hell, I hope when I give up alcohol I don't spend a week talking about
it and just go in a corner some place and drown my sorrows. Quietly.

I've spent maybe 10 minutes max. Popping in and out. It seems that
those defending the dopers or who don't care spend a lot more time
talking about this. Not to mention a lot more anger, rage and general
discontent. You should give up alcohol. Take up Valium, perhaps.

Calling your respondents angry is often a sign that you
aren't holding up your end of the discussion. If you try
again without the righteous attitude, you might get more
of a discussion. Or rbr might just yank your chain. It's a
tossup.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
OK, fine. Stop watching for chrissakes. We can always use rbr as a
place to deal with our sadness that the rest of us continue to watch.
Or not. Or can't watch. Whichever. Whatever.

preston.crawford wrote:

But I want to be able to watch the sport, a clean sport. Why does that
make me the target of such unbelievable vitriol?

Try swimming. With all that water around it must be fairly clean.

I've spent maybe 10 minutes max. Popping in and out. It seems that
those defending the dopers or who don't care spend a lot more time
talking about this. Not to mention a lot more anger, rage and general
discontent. You should give up alcohol. Take up Valium, perhaps.

Sacrilege. You can't expect one of livedrunk(tm) founder members to give
up alcohol. Anyway, being the doper he is I suspect he prefers viagra to
valium or vitriol.

On 9 Jun 2006 11:38:42 -0700, wrote:

But I want to be able to watch the sport, a clean sport. Why does that
make me the target of such unbelievable vitriol?

You just don't get it. We aren't angry and we don't care whether or
not you want to watch a clean sport. We just aren't into smug,
condescending put downs from lap dogs. Another way of saying I really
don't care that what WE do makes YOU sad.

Have a nice day. Or not. Whatever.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

in message .com,
') wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

OK, fine. Stop watching for chrissakes. We can always use rbr as a
place to deal with our sadness that the rest of us continue to watch.
Or not. Or can't watch. Whichever. Whatever.

But I want to be able to watch the sport, a clean sport. Why does that
make me the target of such unbelievable vitriol?

People who care about bike racing have to deal with the fact that
it /isn't/ a clean sport, and that we /can't/ know whether our personal
heroes are clean. People cope with that in different ways. But however
we cope with it, it's a scab, and we don't like it when other people
pick our scabs in public.

All the black humour about this issue is because when you can't fix the
problem, the only thing left to do is laugh.

And now I shall be systematically and deservedly scourged as a dumbass,
because I have explained what shouldn't be (and shouldn't have to be)
explained.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

Nev Shea wrote:

It hasn't made me cynical -- instead it has added another level of
competition to the sport: Beat the testing too!

Viva LANCE! He won on the bike and off!

NS
fan of doping competitions

dumbass,

you don't sound cynical at all.

In article
,
Simon Brooke wrote:

in message .com,
') wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

OK, fine. Stop watching for chrissakes. We can always use rbr as a
place to deal with our sadness that the rest of us continue to watch.
Or not. Or can't watch. Whichever. Whatever.

But I want to be able to watch the sport, a clean sport. Why does that
make me the target of such unbelievable vitriol?

People who care about bike racing have to deal with the fact that
it /isn't/ a clean sport, and that we /can't/ know whether our personal
heroes are clean. People cope with that in different ways. But however
we cope with it, it's a scab, and we don't like it when other people
pick our scabs in public.

All the black humour about this issue is because when you can't fix the
problem, the only thing left to do is laugh.

And now I shall be systematically and deservedly scourged as a dumbass,
because I have explained what shouldn't be (and shouldn't have to be)
explained.

As you wish.
Matthew 7:6.

--
Michael Press

wrote:
Wow. You seem to know a lot about me. Things I don't even think or do.
That's a good way to become the "winner" in a Usenet argument. Just
make things up.

I did no such thing. I presented a pointed response which you avoided.
That is a defense mechanism that is consistent with denial. Don't be
such a self righteous puke.

If it is really essential to you to follow a clean sport you are left
with the one with the brooms that Curtis mentioned. Unless you are
willing to not see things you don't want to see, then the options
are more numerous. If that is the approach you are going to take then
don't expect to be a self righteous puke and have people love you.
The history of doping in sport goes back as far as the existance of
dope and sport. None of this is new, only its visibility to you.

You are familiar with the 'Convicts of the Road' interview that
Albert Londres conducted with Henri Pélissier, right? Should we talk
about some of the stuff that 6 day racers took, back in the day?

The people with the brooms are lucky that lite beer is not considered
performance enhancing. If it was then even they would be off limits.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz wrote:
wrote:
Wow. You seem to know a lot about me. Things I don't even think or do.
That's a good way to become the "winner" in a Usenet argument. Just
make things up.

I did no such thing. I presented a pointed response which you avoided.
That is a defense mechanism that is consistent with denial. Don't be
such a self righteous puke.

If it is really essential to you to follow a clean sport you are left
with the one with the brooms that Curtis mentioned. Unless you are
willing to not see things you don't want to see, then the options
are more numerous. If that is the approach you are going to take then
don't expect to be a self righteous puke and have people love you.
The history of doping in sport goes back as far as the existance of
dope and sport. None of this is new, only its visibility to you.

You are familiar with the 'Convicts of the Road' interview that
Albert Londres conducted with Henri Pélissier, right? Should we talk
about some of the stuff that 6 day racers took, back in the day?

The people with the brooms are lucky that lite beer is not considered
performance enhancing. If it was then even they would be off limits.

Bob Schwartz

That sport with brooms seems to be alcohol and nicotine driven, at
least historically. It's about like league bowling, except on the
championship level.

http://soudogcurling.tripod.com/gervaistribute.html
Everything I've read said he was THE patron saint of this type stuff.
****, it doesn't matter if it's tiddlywinks. When there's competition,
people cheat. That's just the reality, and always has been. Doesn't
mean we like it, just means we're realistic, not demanding some
non-existant sporting utopia.
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Schwartz wrote:
wrote:
Wow. You seem to know a lot about me. Things I don't even think or do.
That's a good way to become the "winner" in a Usenet argument. Just
make things up.

I did no such thing. I presented a pointed response which you avoided.
That is a defense mechanism that is consistent with denial. Don't be
such a self righteous puke.

If it is really essential to you to follow a clean sport you are left
with the one with the brooms that Curtis mentioned. Unless you are
willing to not see things you don't want to see, then the options
are more numerous. If that is the approach you are going to take then
don't expect to be a self righteous puke and have people love you.
The history of doping in sport goes back as far as the existance of
dope and sport. None of this is new, only its visibility to you.

You are familiar with the 'Convicts of the Road' interview that
Albert Londres conducted with Henri Pélissier, right? Should we talk
about some of the stuff that 6 day racers took, back in the day?

The people with the brooms are lucky that lite beer is not considered
performance enhancing. If it was then even they would be off limits.

Bob Schwartz

That sport with brooms seems to be alcohol and nicotine driven, at
least historically. It's about like league bowling, except on the
championship level.

http://soudogcurling.tripod.com/gervaistribute.html
Everything I've read said he was THE patron saint of this type stuff.
****, it doesn't matter if it's tiddlywinks. When there's competition,
people cheat. That's just the reality, and always has been. Doesn't
mean we like it, just means we're realistic, not demanding some
non-existant sporting utopia.


.... or organisations like the UCI which is claiming already for 40 years
that we are making progess (sounds familiar somehow) ...

Benjo