[guidemd]

Please see this prior announcement, that comments about moderating and the forum in general should be confined to the Feedback and Support section (where you may certainly discuss general thoughts about posting on the forum or about the moderating).

This thread will be where we move such comments that occur elsewhere.

I found this thread almost as confusing as most of the doping threads

Hopefully the first quote above (from nearly the start of this thread) will explain it to you .

[rational head]

transfered due to Off topic.

[D-Queued]

Hombre, either you are willfully skewing things or are doing it out of ignorance. Why do you cut and paste reality to fit your script? You think Basso is the only target? Look brother, Ullrich was tossed last year, as was Vino's entire team..., as was podium candidate Mancebo. How do these actions by "the French" fit into your consipiracy theory? When Hamilton got picked off a lot of Americans were all up in arms about it, while simultaneously obliterating from their vision the fact that a Spaniard suffered the same fate at the same time. How does Heras testing postive support your theory about Americans being targets.

It is childish and plain blatant that there is an agenda on the part of some American posters here to blame doping postives on a non-existant conspiracy. It's a boring discussion and misleading to new readers of this forum.

Unless you have some direct evidence of this I think you should you stop spreading rumor and innuendo against the French.

---
Moderator note: Rule 2.2 ... In short, debate the argument, not the person. --ChrisH

I'm going to have to try that strikeout trick.

Anyhow, if applying "Rule 2.2", why is it ok to post such outlandish accusations against the French?

While I appreciate your using strikeout instead of deletion, why not just limit the strikeout to the first third and fourth word of the second strikeout section? Modified in that way, the statement is self-evident. We have at least one thread trying to draw a parallel between the Duke lacrosse case and the Landis case. If that isn't an example of bizarre conspiracy theories, I don't know what is.

Dave.

[ChrisH]

I'm going to have to try that strikeout trick.

Anyhow, if applying "Rule 2.2", why is it ok to post such outlandish accusations against the French?

Because it doesn't apply.

Also see the first post in this topic. I had to move your post here. You were reminded of rule 1.3 before and you should consider this a warning.

While I appreciate your using strikeout instead of deletion, why not just limit the strikeout to the first third and fourth word of the second strikeout section? ...

Your question is covered in the moderating FAQ.

BTW, members are not privy to most moderating decisions due to our intention to maintain the privacy of other members if possible. Another way of putting it is that you don't have "standing" in cases that you're not involved in.

[guidemd]

I find it interesting that someone who continually claims that this forum is full of hypocrisy and double standards ...

Once again I see the hypocrisy notorious on this forum.

This seems to fit in with the glorious double standard that some have around here. It's interesting to note where the main focus of that double standard is placed.

The double standard is there for you to see...if you want to (not saying anything about you, just in general). (snip) But, unless you don't want to see it, I think it's tough not to see the double standard that occurs here.

... yet seems entirely blinded to the fact that he himself is perpetuating a double-standard. Why is it ok for you to continually post messages questioning and criticizing other members' posting/discussion style (examples below, even questioning Floyd), yet when they do the same about you, you claim to be the innocent party and that it's always everyone else's fault?

I could go on but I already know the exact people who, in order to not admit that what I say is true, will now proceed to attack me...as they always do in a situation like this.

I simply think that based on the posts he made(all about his case) and the posts he saw and did not post in (asking about training, music, other riders, etc.) he was obviously here to create a PR buzz, to get more people in his corner. I think he would have done himself more good had he been willing to discuss other things.

I guess it's easier to say that then try to argue against intelligent points that shoot down your false assumptions...or to admit that you would love to see pro's stop by and discuss various aspects of cycling, like I and many others would.

A few questions:
1) How could you be repeating when your first post was based on the assumption that I wanted Landis or any pros to spend hours a day here posting hundreds of posts... which was false?
2) Do you ride?
3) Do you/have you ever raced?
4) Do you watch the races?

Of course you are moving on, that's what you guys do after making posts filled with false implications. You did not present any facts. If you want I can specifically call you out on these false implications and watch you squirm, but from my time on this forum I know what people like you do when called out with facts...run away.

Perhaps you should look at these messages as (at some level) trying to be helpful towards you - as I have also tried several times yet been rudely rebuffed and ignored each time. Unless you can manage to change your style of posting in many instances, then any "challenge" issued by you is really going to be futile.

FWIW, you did seem to manage to change somewhat when you posted under another name - IMO your alter ego was much more polite on the forum than "House" tends to be, which would explain why your alter ego didn't seem to get much if any negative response. Also, the fact that there are relative newbies to this forum who seem to have annoyed you also (yet presumably haven't had the opportunity to form biases or prejudices about you yet), goes against your theory that people are simply responding to who you are rather than what and how you post. In addition, the forum had been relatively calm and uneventful the last 2 weeks or so when you were posting only occasionally - yet in the last 2 days that you've been posting frequently I've lost count of how many other members with whom you seemed to be involved in "disputes" or "disagreements".

You also need to realize that you will never be able to entirely control the flow of discussion on this or any forum because you can't control other people's opinions - someone previously posted the definition of a forum, "a place of or meeting for public discussion". If you're having a discussion with someone in person, you can't keep telling them what they can or can't say. If you think a thread is going off-topic or that it's irrelevant for someone to bring up a related issue in a particular thread, you can simply not post and just ignore it (but don't complain about it and always try to change it). If you think that people are being unduly harsh in their comments towards you, then perhaps you should watch your comments towards them. If you think there's a double-standard and you don't like it, maybe you should go elsewhere.

And yes, this thread is way off-topic, so please everyone try to get back onto the original topic - there are many other mechanisms to express concerns in general/to the mods (ie. Feedback/Support forum), so please everyone use those mechanisms instead. Or else this thread will be closed sooner rather than later.


(addendum - meant to add that I would have preferred to write something like this in private, but since it has been attempted several times previously without any real success and because House is already posting quite publicly here, I felt that this could be posted publicly instead).


(mod note - moved here well after the fact from the Surftel thread, as the mods have been trying to clean up some of the off-topic content there)

This post has been edited by guidemd: 15 February 2007 - 10:12 PM

[House]

The sad reality is that there are users who are...let`s say "negative". I saw House posting in another bike-forum and he showed exactly the same negative behaviour there.
One just needs to have a quick look at his posts there and one will realize: his problems have nothing to do with people here treating him unfairly. This guy will always be involved in disgusting brawls because he`s looking for exactly that.

It's interesting that the only two forums I have any issues are two cycling ones...and both of those have people who like to lie or misrepresent things that people say. Strangely both also have mods who allow trolls to do what they want.


(mod note- moved from "Surftel" thread for being off-topic after a warning and after the thread returned to topic)

This post has been edited by guidemd: 11 February 2007 - 04:52 PM

[D-Queued]

Because it doesn't apply.

Also see the first post in this topic. I had to move your post here. You were reminded of rule 1.3 before and you should consider this a warning.
Your question is covered in the moderating FAQ.

BTW, members are not privy to most moderating decisions due to our intention to maintain the privacy of other members if possible. Another way of putting it is that you don't have "standing" in cases that you're not involved in.

Hi Chris H.

My apologies.

I didn't even see this post, and didn't know this thread existed. As I have already suffered through the challenges of being on the moderation list, I may now occasionally look outside the 'doping' forum from time-to-time.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so I don't need to be reminded of that. However, it would be helpful to get a pm as a warning in the future. Kind of like the application of rule 1.3, only in the other direction. In this case, I trust that you will agree posting that request here remains consistent with the general interest and does not require a pm to the moderators.

Moreover, as this is the place for such comments and questions, then I hope the following is not out of order.

As for the French, unfortunately I still don't understand how this does not relate to the application of the rules. On the one hand, it is a perfectly legitimate conversation topic as Lance does not seem to be able to keep from slurring The French. On the other hand, posts which perpetuate this argument are minimally xenophobic or represent displays of outright prejudice and racism. That doesn't seem very respectful period, let alone of other posters. Whether Lance says it or not, it is effectively nation-bashing and thus would appear to be covered under rule 1.1.

Moreover, if such prejudice is permitted, then we should be allowed to discuss politics in this regard. To suggest that the two are not intertwined is puzzling. It appears minimally curious that Lance's epithets would coincide with American political sentiment and guidance during the last six years.

Thus, if the moderators choose to allow posters to be supportive of a French conspiracy, then how are the rules to be applied?

Please note that this is not simple rhetoric. Vaughn and I have had an interesting dialog on fundamental differences in the relative importance of the law in North American culture as compared with other world cultures. This is not to suggest that other cultures do not support the law, but that we are arguably much more reliant upon it in North America to hold our culture together as North Americans are not from here, but from everywhere else with all other traditions and languages. We cannot fall back on a common tradition, as we don't really have one. We can only fall back on the law. It would be of interest to pose this as a question for consideration to the forum and a consideration of how it may influence our perception of doping and doping enforcement.

Thus, it might be very interesting to discuss this difference further in relation to many topics on the doping forums as we are constantly getting into the mire over 'us' and 'them'. Last thing I want to do, however, is get back on the moderation list and am looking for general guidance here.

Dave.

[ChrisH]

As for the French, unfortunately I still don't understand how this does not relate to the application of the rules ... Whether Lance says it or not, it is effectively nation-bashing and thus would appear to be covered under rule 1.1.

Thus, if the moderators choose to allow posters to be supportive of a French conspiracy, then how are the rules to be applied?

It's a stretch to call that nation bashing. I take the rules fairly literally, at least compared to the other moderators.

As for the idea of extending such a rule, no, it would unduly hamper discussion. For example, I could have used such an extension to moderate a recent post by a member recounting his experiences in the peloton which appeared to bash the Polish (economy) because it was "effectively" nation-bashing.

IMO, the best thing to do if you find a post offensive in that regard is to PM a moderator. That complaint would then be an obvious counter to those who would call such moderation censorship.

[D-Queued]

It's a stretch to call that nation bashing. I take the rules fairly literally, at least compared to the other moderators.

As for the idea of extending such a rule, no, it would unduly hamper discussion. For example, I could have used such an extension to moderate a recent post by a member recounting his experiences in the peloton which appeared to bash the Polish (economy) because it was "effectively" nation-bashing.

IMO, the best thing to do if you find a post offensive in that regard is to PM a moderator. That complaint would then be an obvious counter to those who would call such moderation censorship.

OK, cool.

Thanks for the quick reply.

Dave.

[OAR]

I posted in the Floyd's book thread.. Positivly false and the post just disappeared. Anyone want to let me know why?

Post was something like this.


Floyds book may be interesting and I would like to see if he has any inside info as a US pro in Euro Hell?????

The other part was regarding house being off topic and edited by a Mod. Basically I said more than one person or poster were guilty of being off topic.

Hypocritical moderation NO?

[sundaymorning]

Can we please ban hCG&testosterone.sprinting! again? The last time he was here as H2O2 he got banned pretty quick.

[amifan]

Can we please ban hCG&testosterone.sprinting! again? The last time he was here as H2O2 he got banned pretty quick.

Sunday, you know I respect your work and your opinions so I am wondering if you are certain they are one and the same?

[House]

Sunday, you know I respect your work and your opinions so I am wondering if you are certain they are one and the same?

I just read some of his posts and it's definitely him, same style saying the exact same things. He has reappeared on other forums as well.

He also just got banned from another sight and suddenly showed up here...just like last time.

This post has been edited by House: 02 March 2007 - 02:10 PM

[dbrower]

Well, I'd vote for merging this thread into the one Hiltzik started, because it's redundant, both having devolved largely into attacks on his reporting and personal character, and because the thread title is near, if not over a line of propriety and civility.

I'd certainly expect to catch some grief if I started threads under the titles, "Poster X, Idiot", "Poster Y, ADA Shill", "Poster Z, Dick Pound in disguise".

-dB

[rational head]

Well, I'd vote for merging this thread into the one Hiltzik started, because it's redundant, both having devolved largely into attacks on his reporting and personal character, and because the thread title is near, if not over a line of propriety and civility.

I'd certainly expect to catch some grief if I started threads under the titles, "Poster X, Idiot", "Poster Y, ADA Shill", "Poster Z, Dick Pound in disguise".

-dB

thank you for your suggestion. It was moved here because it belongs in feedback.

[mwbyrd]

Tom... have you just recently taken a dive into Hamiltonville? Hook line and sinker - that text message stuff has been exposed for what it was - a Tyler move of utter desperation. As for Mr. Hiltzik failing to point out that Santi Perez was a close teammate - I consider that a grave omission. Inexcusable. Not only was it same team, it was same time period! Not only did they both get caught, but both also had quantum jumps in performance... Man alive man! Please, Tyler's case needsto be buried forever - RIP - one of the saddest chapters ever on American cyclists in Europe.



mwbyrd - may I repsectfully point out that rational head has donated countless hours of expertise to this case - giving us free lessons in the science while he himself read hideously boring operating manuals and whatnot - any conclusions he has reached were made after very careful consideration. RH is more interested in learning than spinning. Much to my delight!
Well, I'll remain open to any real new news from Mr. Hiltzik. The original doping series left me dissatisfied on many levels - I put my opinions up at the time and my thoughts on the matter haven't changed any since then.

Yeah, he's spent hours researching and donating his 'expertise' to this forum. The problem is that he isn't objective about it. Everything he states declares that Floyd is guilty no matter what. He won't even admit that the labs documented mistakes of not following simple procedures like documenting changes correctly means anything.

I'm sure, if he were in Floyd's shoes and knew that the lab didn't follow basic procedures, he'd be singing to the same tune as Floyd's. Oh yeah, let's not forget about the UCI and WADA continually blasting Landis before the B sample was confirmed. Or better yet, how about USADA asking to retest negative samples? nah...no red flags there....

If RH had been objective about anything he's posted, I wouldn't have a problem. I wonder how he'd feel if his whole livelihood was based on one test result. I guess he'd just roll over and accept his punishment, knowing that the science behind his test is 100% accurate, especially since he's a scientist.

[alanshearer]

I moved few posts here including mine as they more properly belong in this topic.

Why not just delete or lock this thread? What purpose does it serve other than to air and discuss someone's alleged dirty laundry that has nothing to do with these forums? Or is this an example of when personal attacks on posters is permitted? As there are a number of posters I'd like to attack personally, some clarification on what ie permitted would be helpful.