Reid Rothchild

Bro, I guess what you were originally attacking me for, that I didn't have the goods on Kloden, didn't pan out. Where do you think I got that info from? It was someone like yourself; he however, doesn't like the direction Pro cycling is headed, especially with the return of the cancer.

You know things I will never know? Wow, this crap is worse with the drugs? Armstrong's shenanigans with the ladies is worse than we thought? Why don't you tell us what happened when he was up on Alpe d' Huez with Gyllenhaal.


The fact is the claim I made is true and tragic and the people who want to change things are ostracized. They're not quaking in their boots wondering if their 50k yearly salary(at best) is at risk if they are honest about things.

You say there is a place for informed discussion, but this is not it. What, are you just showing off then? It's ok to sell bs to the grown men and women who are falling all over themselves to be close to Pharmstrong. Anyway, the truth trumps all, and it's not the people like you (who are doing your best to hide the truth) that I'm directing this to. You've showed your values. One of them is belonging to cliques. What, with people like Roll and Carmichael and Bruyneel? Mediocre insiders who are sucking off the fraudulent Armstrong? You're really painting a nice portrait of a true chamois sniffer. You definitely don't subscribe to the old Groucho Marx maxim about belonging to clubs. Look that one up!

That's why I love stuff like boxing, these friggin guys are fighting at the weigh in for GOD's sake. If Armstrong pulled his crap in a sport like that he'd be getting called out.

Who won Liege?

That says a lot about "tactics," no?

Hey, why don't you tell us about the tactics of the 2003 edition?

Fat Boy

Reid is not a person to have a discussion with, and that is really the issue. Make it a sub-forum and let him control every thread and rant to himself. That's what he does anyway. When you have 4 doping threads and 8 out of every 10 posts are from the same guy, it's beyond ridiculous. It informs no one and settles nothing. Reasonable people just leave and the discussion turns into some sort of bizarre self-parody.

Reid Rothchild

The only way I could ever be the issue is that my posts are getting in the way of your fantasy.

"Reasonable people" are watching a whole sport become a circus and are thought of as reasonable?

You "discuss it" as cycling itself has already turned into some sort of bizarre self parody.

Blah, Blah, Blah, isn't the sign of a reasonable person.

Fat Boy

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, may I introduce exhibit A.

Bacciagalupe

BF has handled many discussions about doping, including many drawn-out and sometimes less than civil discussions about Landis, with few requests to segregate it into a doping subforum.

Reid shows up, and within a week, any discussions about doping or Armstrong get mired down by a certain poster.

Seems to me that Reid is at best arrogant and disrespectful, and at worst a troll. I think he needs a little "cooling off" time, during which I doubt you will see too much interest in a separate doping subforum....

Reid Rothchild

I think you should let the moderators do their jobs. I've been on the receiving end of being called an idiot twice. Nothing was done and I'm not a crybaby who can't accept being proven wrong, unlike others who populate cyberspace. Any names I call Armstrong are well deserved. He's strong because of drugs, hence Pharmstrong. As I've pointed out, look at the slash and burn tactics both LA, and FL have employed. Anything I've written about them has been mild in comparison.

Man, look in the mirror if you want to talk about arrogant and disrespectful. Look to your heroes.

luxroadie

Amen - Reid is killing this forum. You are right on many fronts but we are sick of hearing you repeat it fifty times a day and in 10,000 words or more.

Reid - please just go away - Not because you are wrong but we are tired of you.

Just shut up - step away from the computer and go for a ride.

We are done ...

Reid Rothchild

If I'm right I shouldn't have to shoot down absurd arguments. Does that make any sense to you? Vent your frustration at the culprits of doping.


The way you're addressing things is part of the problem..

BTW, I never give up. I wouldn't expect you to give up.

Bacciagalupe

I'm hardly arm-chair modding. I'm adding to the chorus that thinks you're a detriment to the forums.


Oddly enough, as much as I've clashed with other people 'round here (typically those who fail to accept that certain individuals are doping), I've never had a raft of people trying to kick me off of the forums. Take the hint.

And as I keep telling you, these people are not my "heroes." I simply prefer to adhere to tests and scientific proof, instead of innuendo, unsubstantiated claims and circumstantial evidence. The fact that you can't distinguish between someone who is fairly strongly anti-doping and an idolator who pretends that all athletes are paragons of virtue merely proves my point.

Reid Rothchild

You're worse than the idolators.

They don't know any better.

You're not even fairly strongly(what a wishy washy phrase)anti doping.

Police actions are what's cleaning up sport if it's being cleaned at all. The controls are ineffective.

I previously thought you may be a lawyer, but for you to dismiss circumstantial evidence kind of leads me to believe you're not. People go to jail for life based soley upon circumstantial evidence.

Anyway, I don't take hints and who cares about the chorus anyway? That's why there are leaders in this world. You're also probably part of the chorus on a lot of issues.

Most have a hard time accepting the truth no matter how obvious.

Like it or not, you're in with the chorus that is singing on Armstrong's twitter page.

Did you join the chorus singing that LeMond is a whiner?

Bacciagalupe

Yeah, whatever. I've made many statements in support of labs, testing procedures, police actions, and sanctions for athletes who test positive. I've clashed with people who think that certain American athletes were "set up" by WADA, the UCI, the LNDD and so forth. I don't accept silly conspiracy theories in desperate attempts to exculpate accused athletes.

By the way, I also don't try to minimize the presence of PED's in other sports, as you clearly do (for reasons that are utterly inexplicable).

As I pointed out earlier, you bash anyone who does not blindly agree with your complete and entire position. In fact, it's evident that you bash just about anyone who is, well, not you.


I have no problems at all with LeMond. And as I repeatedly tell you, I don't particularly care for or about Armstrong. Apparently, I just have stricter standards of evidence than you -- and they are hardly insurmountable, as I have long accepted that Landis, Hamilton, Vino, et al are dopers.


Aww, you hurt my feelings.

You're not leading anyone or anything; you're just trolling. So however you wind up leaving: Don't let the door hit your tuchas on the way out....

Reid Rothchild

That's good.

I do? Link it then. PED's are obviously prevalent in most major sports and it's just as wrong as in cycling. I think as I've made clear, my major problem is with Armstrong and the tactics he's used to defend himself. Roger Clemens is obviously a complete jackass also and is employing similiar tactics but doesn't have the halo effect Armstrong is hypocritically using.

"Hope rides again" particularly offends me.

I can't win with you guys. Blind agreement is the last thing I want so I make lengthy posts to refute each piece of nonsense the people here put up. Then I get ripped for the length of the posts.



Then you should have distinguished yourself from the rest instead of just joining the chorus and piling on. I'm not going to look through the threads but I believe I can find instances where you've done just that. You know if you've done that or not so if you have, I don't want to carry this nonsense on and have to go back and shut you down with your own words. Actually from what I've seen when I've gone back, you did post this stuff, which by the way is not correct.When myself and this poster told you that you didn't have a clue:You started taking an attitude with me even though you were 100% wrong on the whole nonsense of the "saddle sore cream" and were speaking there out of ignorance. That was an instance where Armstrong was questioned very closely by the Le Monde reporter and Armstrong pulled his intimidation tactics. The fact, which you choose to ignore, which you could very easily find out, is that Armstrong said he wasn't using anything until the positive control came out then he came up with this saddle sore bs. He didn't declare anything until he got a backdated prescription. These are facts but being Bacciagalupe, you know better, just because you do.



I'm trolling? How, by pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about?

There you go, playing moderator again.

europa

We need a seperate forum with the software setup so that everything this Reid idiot (there's that word again) posts gets shunted automatically into there. That's right Reid, I too am calling you an troll.

Richard

Siu Blue Wind

OKAY EVERYBODY STOP!!!

This is a poll thread. Please answer the poll and add a small comment if you'd like regarding your poll choice but DO NOT discuss doping here.

Thank you

Siu Blue Wind
Forum Admin

Reid Rothchild

It looks like the poll numbers are in and the results are 66% say either, no limits on discussion, or discuss it all you want in a separate forum.

Siu Blue Wind

I really don't want to babysit this thread. I have posted a warning and STILL people continue to banter on in a negative way to each other.

This thread has a purpose, which is to help consolidate threads into a new subforum. It is not to banter back and forth about other's beliefs.

This thread is very close to being closed and if so cannot accomplish its purpose.

It's up to you.

Siu

Sci-Fi

If someone gets caught, then there will be a topic created that may/should only last a few days, a week at the most if there are more revelations. Someone might mention new drugs and/or testing methods as a FYI.

What would be inappropriate is bringing the subject up in a race/stage/event thread "IF" nobody tested positive. But a separate sub-forum? Don't think so. Be a waste of bandwidth/forum space and only a few would banter (flame) among themselves. The mods should have a headache right now with some of the threads/posts in this section. Just sticky one topic thread like the 'helmets cramp my style' thread if people want to rant about it and if it has nothing to do with a current race. Would make life easier for those that want to read about a particular race and not have to read OT stuff or a flame war. Otherwise people will just avoid this section all together and hope it doesn't spread to the other sections.

Fat Boy

No, the poll doesn't say that at all.

10% say other. You infer that is somehow in support of you. These people could be saying to leave the forum the way it is, but remove you from it. This would be a nice option.

30% say leave things as it is, which is essentially in support of your right to do what you do.

25% want to limit this discussion to recent happenings, which means, for the most part, you'd have to stop blathering on about Lance.

37.5% want to stick you in a little subforum box so you can post to yourself

In round numbers, at least 63% want things changed, and that number could be 73% if we knew what 'other' meant.

merlinextraligh

+1.

This is sucking the life out of the Professional cycling forum.

DMF 

Which is exactly my point! Since every thread here has been turning into a doper mosh pit, people are staying away in droves. I just checked the numbers. Here we are coming up on the Giro, there are 270 viewers in Road Cycling, 138 in Mechanics, and TWO here in Pro Cycling. I doesn't help the sport when people can't go to the most popular cycling forum to discuss it.

I wonder who the other one is?

USAZorro

Check the bottom of the Forum page. It will tell you.

fwiw - we're working on posting guidelines for the Giro Threads - which will include protocol for discussing doping. These threads will not be allowed to fall into the cesspool. If that works, the protocol may get expanded. If it doesn't work, we'll try something else.

Mooo

As soon as anyone mentions the "D" word, they kind of get smeared around here. That's unfortunate.
The difficulty with limiting discussions to the last 2 weeks or even 20 weeks is that some of these guys have careers that span 15 years or more. If it turns up that Eki or say Roy Knickman writes a tell all book about the needle in the haystack (not that he would or even could) there'd be no discussion allowed here. That hobbles the forum and limits its usefulness needlessly.

If a pro cyclist launches a smear campaign against a respected journalist, that would be disallowed also, although its impact on pro cycling might be profound.

It's better, I think, to leave it open to the extent possible. Yes, you or I might get tense if someone accuses a personal hero, but tough it out. If your identity is that tightly wrapped to an individual not in your immediate family, perhaps it's time to step back a little and re-examine some priorities.

The more I think on it, the more I lean to the opinion that to limit the discussion of doping is to give it tacit approval. That's not a side of the argument I'd care to be on.

So one poster appears to have an ax to grind. FWIW, I'm seeing a lot more hostility directed at him than coming from him. Doesn't mean I agree with him, but geez, even mention that the Self-Important-One might not be clean and the hate crawls out of the woodwork. Maybe R's got a point.

USAZorro

There are a couple points I'd like to make in response. I hope they will clarify my perspective - although I need to stress that this is only my perspective at this point - not the BF policy.

There's a significant difference between someone starting their own thread about - let's make something up - Ongoing Fallout from Operation Puerto, and carrying on a civil discussion about evidence that brings Valverde's involvement into question, and someone posting about Operation Puerto's unanswered questions after Valverde wins stage 11 of the Tour in the "Tour De France Stage 11" thread - (unless Valverde were to test positive after taking the stage). There is a substantial segment of the Forum that prefers to focus on the action that's occurring in the saddle, and quite frankly, I think they deserve to have their space to carry on in this manner, free from the incessant speculation. Now if, three days after winning stage 11, Valverde were to test positive, that becomes fair game, as now that discussion is unavoidably part of that thread.

Second Point - I was also disappointed at the mutual hostility that seemed to prevail between RR and some of the others here. I give Reid a lot of credit for remaining true to his principles, and I found him capable of giving, for the most part, quite rational and measured arguments and responses. I also found him capable of being abrasive and dogmatic, which certainly helped to stir things up - to the point where his message was secondary to the reaction to the messenger for some. Perhaps he'll return. perhaps he won't. If he does, I hope to see more of the measured and rational side, and rather less "PHARMSTRONG", references to those who question him as "chamois sniffers", and invective of that sort. Moral crusaders tend to be much better received when they speak in even tones, and don't assault their listeners.

Well enough for now. Giro is less than four days away. Hopefully we'll get to see some of it.

Reid Rothchild

• As the Toto Turns 132
  
  Go to the comments!
  
• As the Toto Turns 131
  
  Go to the comments!
  
• As the Toto Turns 130
  
  Go to the comments!
  

« first‹ previous123456789…next ›last »

Fat Boy

Take a look at the cartoon and then consider whether you'd like to amend your credits.

RR is essentially a religious zealot. His religion is doping. He introduces nothing new. He actually hurts a cause that most of us agree with his unending nonsense.