Embarassing to be a cyclist

Tony said:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am sick of all this news with our
Olympic cycling team, now the riders won't talk to Ben Kerston, what a
bloody joke.

Talk about the worst possible preparation for an Olympic campaign. Any medal won by an Aussie (or any other rider for that matter) will be questioned. I hate the fact that our team has been stained with this reputation.

Tony said:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am sick of all this news with our
Olympic cycling team, now the riders won't talk to Ben Kerston, what a
bloody joke.

Even worse than that IMHO was the cretin of coach (Flynn?) who was quoted saying in effect "sure Jobie has now admitted to self-injecting on several occasions (clear breach of team protocols), and has been caught out telling barefaced lies to (two) formal inquiries into doping, ... but the punishment (ie kicking him off the team) seems a bit tough to me".

Yep, that's setting a great example for the guys on the team isn't it ... with that sort of attitude at the top, no wonder the sport's in this mess.

"Unregistered" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am sick of all this news with
our
Olympic cycling team, now the riders won't talk to Ben Kerston, what a
bloody joke.

Even worse than that IMHO was the cretin of coach (Flynn?) who was
quoted saying in effect "sure Jobie has now admitted to self-injecting
on several occasions (clear breach of team protocols), and has been
caught out telling barefaced lies to (two) formal inquiries into
doping, ... *but the punishment (ie kicking him off the team) seems a
bit tough to me*".

Yep, that's setting a great example for the guys on the team isn't it
.. with that sort of attitude at the top, no wonder the sport's in
this mess.

--
Unregistered

Flynn should have been sacked

Unregistered said:

Even worse than that IMHO was the cretin of coach (Flynn?) who was quoted saying in effect "sure Jobie has now admitted to self-injecting on several occasions (clear breach of team protocols), and has been caught out telling barefaced lies to (two) formal inquiries into doping, ... but the punishment (ie kicking him off the team) seems a bit tough to me".

Yep, that's setting a great example for the guys on the team isn't it ... with that sort of attitude at the top, no wonder the sport's in this mess.

always seems the same scenario that brings drugs about too
(leaving aside the huge amounts of money and ego for a sec...)

Ageing athlete/s probably past their absolute peak, struggling with a serious injury and desparate to make a comeback/regain their stature, etc.
Made far worse when these individuals get to influence the rookies who think that is how it 'must' be done. That's basically what created Tom Simpson (that and he was as thick as the Anderson report)

I saw a bit of this in the baseball 'farm' system (A,AA,AAA) where the older tripleA players were fighting age and injuries, were into all kinds of sheet and supposed to be about to mentor the rookies.
Not dissimilar to bull durham (no susan sarandon, or 'breathing thru the eyelids' ).
They would openly recieve packages from Germany all the time and boast how cheap they could get it...

Tony said:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am sick of all this news with our
Olympic cycling team, now the riders won't talk to Ben Kerston, what a
bloody joke.

I can see why - his attitude seems pretty bad to me. He thinks he's
somehow entitled to a spot in the team with his name carved on it,
even though he lost (sorely) when given the chance to compete
directly for it.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

quote='Michael Warner'On Tue said:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am sick of all this news with our
Olympic cycling team, now the riders won't talk to Ben Kerston, what a
bloody joke.

I can see why - his attitude seems pretty bad to me. He thinks he's
somehow entitled to a spot in the team with his name carved on it,
even though he lost (sorely) when given the chance to compete
directly for it.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo[/QUOTE]

even if his riding ability earnt him the spot, doing his whineing thru the media is pretty immature IMHO. let the bike speak.
Or grow a funny beard...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Warner said:

He thinks he's
somehow entitled to a spot in the team with his name carved on it,
even though he lost (sorely) when given the chance to compete
directly for it.

I gather his argument is that he *wasn't* given the chance to compete
directly for it, and that his competitor was given more time to beat his
time.

Whatever, the behavior by some team members is doing no-one any good.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

Whatever, the behavior by some team members is doing no-one any good.

IMHO all of the ugliness in modern sport has the same basic cause -
professionalism. When the money, either public or private, is available to
enable people to devote themselves to a sport full-time, their view of the
world becomes completely distorted. They'll do anything to win, anything
to get a team spot (hire lawyers etc), and anything to extend their
careers, since life beyond competition looks like a vacuum.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

"flyingdutch" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

even if his riding ability earnt him the spot, doing his whineing thru
the media is pretty immature IMHO. let the bike speak.
Or grow a funny beard...

I didn't think he was whining. All the interviews I've seen with
him have shown him to be arguing with the method of selection
and he seemed to emphasise the fact he wasn't trying to upset
the other riders.
The fact that the selection process had Eadie and Kersten
riding on different days is ridiculous when such a small
difference between them could have been temperature
related or time related, etc.
It all sounds dodgy to me and I think Eadie and Kersten
should ride off on the same day to decide this properly.
Cyclingnews had an interesting article which indicated that
Jobie(sp?) only had his DNA on 9 out of 70-something
discovered samples, the rest being an unknown person,
most likely French who refused to provide his DNA.
As someone mentioned earlier, unless this DNA was
inside the syringe - what's to say that Dajka(sp?) didn't
just sneeze on the 'sharps bucket' whilst in French's room?
The more I read, the more rubbish I realise is being
unleashed via mainstream TV/newspapers...

hippy

In article <[email hidden]>,

hippy said:

Cyclingnews had an interesting article which indicated that
Jobie(sp?) only had his DNA on 9 out of 70-something
discovered samples, the rest being an unknown person,
most likely French who refused to provide his DNA.

He didn't refuse; he wasn't asked for a sample. The aim of the testing
was to see if there was DNA from anyone other than French; it was
conceded on all sides that it would full of his DNA.

Quoted message said:

As someone mentioned earlier, unless this DNA was
inside the syringe - what's to say that Dajka(sp?) didn't
just sneeze on the 'sharps bucket' whilst in French's room?

"what's to say" is that, presented with the DNA evidence, he admitted
that he had lied earlier, and that he had in fact injected in French's
room.

Quoted message said:

The more I read, the more rubbish I realise is being
unleashed via mainstream TV/newspapers...

Well, yes. But it is a fairly complex story, and it's easy enough to get
the wrong end of the stick, or come to wrong conclusions.

--
Shane Stanley

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:57:05 +1000, flyingdutch
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Not dissimilar to bull durham (no susan sarandon, or 'breathing thru
the eyelids' ).

So nobody got tied to the beadstead? Bummer.

--
Regards.
Richard.

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"hippy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The more I read, the more rubbish I realise is being
unleashed via mainstream TV/newspapers...

Well, yes. But it is a fairly complex story, and it's easy enough to get
the wrong end of the stick, or come to wrong conclusions.

It's easy enough to get it right, too. All the "journalists" have to
do is ask questions and check the answers. Instead what they do is
decide what they want to report and then go out looking for "facts" to
support it. If they can't get any support for their "scoop", then they
make it up or speculate. Even if they do get the facts more or less
right, they do a report on the sprint jersey in the TdF and the next
day they've never heard of Eric Zabel.

--
Regards.
Richard.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Sherratt said:

It's easy enough to get it right, too.

And yet a good percentage of the posts on the topic here, by people who
follow the sport, have contained errors.

Quoted message said:

All the "journalists" have to do is ask questions and check the answers.

If only it were that easy...

Quoted message said:

Instead what they do is
decide what they want to report and then go out looking for "facts" to
support it. If they can't get any support for their "scoop", then they
make it up or speculate.

Sort of like your speculation on how the media works, you mean?

The explanation is probably a bit simpler, if duller. Signs of drug use
were found, and the whole thing smacked of cover-up and closing ranks.
In a sports-mad country that _is_ a good story. Since then, many of the
details have been misreported and the tabloid press has done what it
does to every story.

Now imagine they just ignored it in the first place. Would the AOC have
bothered with the inquiries, or the expense of all those DNA tests? And
without those, we'd be even more in the dark. At least those of us with
a legitimate interest and the patience to sift through things now have
access to more than just speculation.

--
Shane Stanley

Turn the clocks back to Seoul 1988 & a certain Tony Davis from WA won
selection for the pursuit only problem was on of Charlie's Angels was
pencilled in for the spot. Same story different characters, nothing changes.
Steve @ IDEAL

"Michael Warner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley said:

Whatever, the behavior by some team members is doing no-one any good.

IMHO all of the ugliness in modern sport has the same basic cause -
professionalism. When the money, either public or private, is available to
enable people to devote themselves to a sport full-time, their view of the
world becomes completely distorted. They'll do anything to win, anything
to get a team spot (hire lawyers etc), and anything to extend their
careers, since life beyond competition looks like a vacuum.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Sherratt said:

It's easy enough to get it right, too.

And yet a good percentage of the posts on the topic here, by people who
follow the sport, have contained errors.

Impossible. Everything on the internet is 100% accurate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All the "journalists" have to do is ask questions and check the answers.

If only it were that easy...

It's not easy, but real journalists can do it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Instead what they do is
decide what they want to report and then go out looking for "facts" to
support it. If they can't get any support for their "scoop", then they
make it up or speculate.

Sort of like your speculation on how the media works, you mean?

Not speculation. Direct from the source. But I'm not saying which TV
news editor (and that's the boss) is a good friend and has been for
many years.

There are exceptions, of course, and I was describing the extreme
case. Most of the inaccurate news reporting is just plain incompetence
and sloppiness. As for (most of) the so-called current affairs
programs, what they do isn't journalism.

Quoted message said:

The explanation is probably a bit simpler, if duller. Signs of drug use
were found, and the whole thing smacked of cover-up and closing ranks.
In a sports-mad country that _is_ a good story. Since then, many of the
details have been misreported and the tabloid press has done what it
does to every story.

Now imagine they just ignored it in the first place. Would the AOC have
bothered with the inquiries, or the expense of all those DNA tests?

It would have happened eventually.

--
Regards.
Richard.

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley

Quoted message said:

"hippy" wrote:
Cyclingnews had an interesting article which indicated that
Jobie(sp?) only had his DNA on 9 out of 70-something
discovered samples, the rest being an unknown person,
most likely French who refused to provide his DNA.

He didn't refuse; he wasn't asked for a sample.

Not according to cyclingnews:

"French refused to provide a DNA sample to the inquiry, although all other cyclists named by French did provide samples."
- http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul29news4

hippy

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley

Quoted message said:

Richard Sherratt wrote:
It's easy enough to get it right, too.

And yet a good percentage of the posts on the topic here, by people who
follow the sport, have contained errors.

Including yours it seems..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All the "journalists" have to do is ask questions and check the answers.

If only it were that easy...

Better than simply assuming guilt and mocking up "shooting gallery" scenes
to hype it all up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If they can't get any support for their "scoop", then they
make it up or speculate.

Quoted message said:

Sort of like your speculation on how the media works, you mean?
The explanation is probably a bit simpler, if duller.

Is this _assumption_ based on knowledge or speculation?

Quoted message said:

Now imagine they just ignored it in the first place. Would the AOC have
bothered with the inquiries, or the expense of all those DNA tests?

Do you think the enquiry was simply started to placate the media and
public? Find a guilty party, absolve the others and then move along..?
Do we have things like ASDA for nothing?

Quoted message said:

At least those of us with a legitimate interest and the patience to sift >through things now have access to more than just speculation.

None of us were in the room. We all have to rely on second-hand
information about this issue. You are assuming the news services you use
have correctly reported "the facts" and not speculated..

hippy

Steve said:

Turn the clocks back to Seoul 1988 & a certain Tony Davis from WA won
selection for the pursuit only problem was on of Charlie's Angels was
pencilled in for the spot. Same story different characters, nothing changes.
Steve @ IDEAL

"Michael Warner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley said:

Whatever, the behavior by some team members is doing no-one any good.

IMHO all of the ugliness in modern sport has the same basic cause -
professionalism. When the money, either public or private, is available to
enable people to devote themselves to a sport full-time, their view of the
world becomes completely distorted. They'll do anything to win, anything
to get a team spot (hire lawyers etc), and anything to extend their
careers, since life beyond competition looks like a vacuum.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

The basic question should still be : "Have I ridden as well as I could ride, to the best of my knowledge?" Not "Who did I beat, no matter what the cost?" Coz you'd have to live with the knowledge that if you took drugs, part of your performance wasn't you, it was some chemist in Germany. Selfishness - what medals did I win, vs. how did I compare to my dreams of how I'd go? Who did I hurt to get where I got? What does it all mean - that I got up that hill/ round that track/ across that line quicker than everyone else on that day? It's all just an arbitrary measurement - someone will better that time soon. But what can't be erased is how you measured up to your own expectations. (It's all just about looking big in front of your mates, isn't it?) Or trying as hard as your body and mind will let you, knowing you've done your best. Do nice guys finish last?

M"?"H

Richard Sherratt said:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:57:05 +1000, flyingdutch
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Not dissimilar to bull durham (no susan sarandon, or 'breathing thru
the eyelids' ).

So nobody got tied to the beadstead? Bummer.

--
Regards.
Richard.

My lips are sealed 😉