a random "keep it out of the live threads" thread, with no new doping info.

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=10163

The riders on the Giro podium for the past 10 years are …relatively long list and then… Jose Rujano Guillen (positive test 2003), Ivan Basso (accused in Operation Puerto), and Jose Gutierrez Cataluna (accused in Operation Puerto).

here and here and here (just a wikipedia thing). On this page, if you search for the word doping, it appears to be present but whited out.

And here is a discussion from local fans at the time the ban happened, in google translate.

Maybe it’s indeed an “accidental” or a “petacchi” (overdone TUE) or who knows.

it’s that 60 minutes would not go public with grand jury testimony if the were not 100% .

concentrates the mind somewhat, yes?

(I think I even said to myself i before e and still fucked it up.)

Not the Mango underwear you’ve been asking for.

(Transvision Vamp, 1988)

Rules of Participation

I don’t know how much of a rule the “no doping-talk in the livethreads” is? It is more part of the common courtesy to others I think. Mentions of doping tend to spiral into longwinded debates and there is plenty of room for that elsewhere on the site. Having endless sub-threads about it in the racethread takes away a lot of the viewing pleasure for many who are looking for good commentary and discussion of what is actually going on in the race.

politics
“no partisan politics” (most particularly US, though anywhere else that politics gets insanely partisan, would be good to avoid that, too). In contrast, trying to figure out the structure of, say, Belgian gov’t (for example) is just fine. This one doesn’t change, though as with all rules, violations happen. Don’t be part of the escalation. Even if it’s Chris who starts it…don’t go there. Can you post bike related politics? For sure. But de-partisan the post.

bandwidth
For a while, there was a “no big off topic pix / viddy in live threads” preference, for people on tight bandwidth. Not sure if that’s still in effect / still an issue. I think it may yet be. Can’t hurt to try and respect that. If I were on tight bandwidth and trying to follow a race, I’d hate to get a giant Barney the Dinosaur picture, just because someone thinks Phil L. is a dinosaur.

doping in general, Lance in specific
While Lance was not riding, there was a “no Lance doping talk” absolute ban, on the understanding that all old evidence had been hashed, and there was no new evidence, and the fight got so very, very nasty. So Lance was HWMNBN (he who must not be named) or more specifically, HWAODMNBN (he whose allegations of doping must not be named) or variants thereof. Reality caught up with politeness, and those discussion are not banned sitewide anymore. However, it was hard not to notice that live threads were a lot more fun for all involved if no direct allegations were made against riders that some of the participants were rooting for, and if people who wanted to suspend disbelief for the course of the race were allowed to do so, in peace. Anyone who could not bear to watch the race, for any reason, could then exercise their right to not watch the race, without crapping on everyone else’s enjoyment. (And believe me, many of us do hit that point at least a few times per season. But if every one of us had to be miserable every time one of us is feeling particularly disillusioned, this site would implode, or explode, under the weight of all that misery.) A certain amount of hinting will always happen, but serious shit storms should invite themselves off to side threads.

For that matter, we have personal friends and family of some of the riders on this thread. Thus, what’s random speculation to one person is potentially both off-base and really painful to others. Therefore, call it a strong and effective convention, rather than a strict rule, but err on the side of caution.

What about convicted ex-dopers? The fact of their past conviction is fact. So be it. Speculation about their present and future activities is speculation. Differentiate.

general rudeness
Attacks on people posting here, unless done in fun, are not cool. See here for the “disagreement pyramid.” Refute the argument, rather than attacking the person. Homophobia, thoughtless / over-broad national or racial characterizations are also not cool. That doesn’t mean you can’t mention nationality (or race). But if you’re playing with a stereotype, make it clear that you know that’s what you’re doing, rather than just buying into the stereotype—or worse, assuming that we should obviously buy into it, too.

Better yet, have something more solid to go on. If you want to accuse some group or nationality of having a history of [whichever nefarious activity you’re commenting on], have the numbers, or at least the names, to back up the assertion.

but s/he did it first!
As you may have noticed, there are a lot of strong characters here. If someone’s having a grouchy or tortured day, you can try to cheer them up, talk them down, or ignore them, but it is usually better not to grab your own handful of ape shit and start flinging. How to tell “a bad day” from “a troll”? Not that “seniority” should matter, but it can’t hurt to click on their little icon and see how much they’ve posted in the past, and how long they’ve been around. Also, remember that we have people from essentially every continent except antarctica on this site. There are both national and personal differences in style, in humor, and in the use of language. If someone misses your point, remember they may be working in their 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) language. Clarify, don’t ridicule. Ditto if you don’t get the point someone else is making, or if you think they’re being so direct as to be rude, or so indirect as to be mealy-mouthed.

random
On request, there’s a certain cricket test match from long ago that can’t be mentioned, as it provoked an international incident. Requests were made about not using the “pedabear” meme, regardless of the spirit and intent of the usage. I’m sure there are some other things along those lines—stuff that really, really bothered someone, and they asked nicely to have it go away. Frankly, unless you read every thread, you can’t know what, in the past, someone has asked not to hear about. Nor can you know who is vegetarian, carnivorous, allergic to soy, lactose intolerant, religious, irreligious, areligious, works nights, works mornings, has cancer, had cancer, hates cancer, or professes to love cancer, is an ELPMO (Everything Lance Pisses Me Off), nor are you likely to guess right on everyone’s gender, orientation, race, education, job, nationality, nor which ex-doper they’d most like to forgive. Nevertheless, once people have posted their information some half-dozen times in the past few years, some of them will feel that this is “known” information in the PdC “community,” and may act accordingly. People are like that—they remember what they wrote, they don’t know what you’ve read. If you bump into someone’s issue, or if you presume or assume the wrong thing, do as you’d do off the net—smile nicely, back off, say “no harm intended” if needed.

good netizen behavior
No full frontal nudity, because that could get the site taken down, banned or blocked in various countries. If something is not safe for work, mention that (NSFW) when you give the link. Don’t steal pix—give attribution, or ask the source if you can use it, if need be. Better yet, post the link, not the pic itself, unless you own the shot (especially if you’re posting a fanpost or fanshot, and the image will be “above the fold.” When quoting, give a snippet and a link (something that would be OK under “fair use” in the real world press).

Slander, libel, and “I” statements.
Remember, in some countries, truth is not a defense against slander or libel charges. If you’re wanting to say “rider XYZ is a doper,” it’s safer to say, “My gut says XYZ is a doper” (statement of feeling) or “two people are now saying in public they saw rider XYZ dope” (statement of fact about someone saying something). On the other hand, feel free to say “rider XYZ is an asshat”—statements that can’t be taken literally are not subject to libel and slander laws. Remembering, of course, that rider XYZ’s parents, DS and kid brother may see it here.

Obscenity
To quote Tom Lehrer—“I’m for it.” However, if you see it being pointed directly at cafe members, they’re either old friends, new friends, and/or they’re quoting The Big Lebowski. Participate at your own speed, and at your own risk.

eyebrows are definitely raised.

I know that CA is “just a training ride” for a lot of teams, but on the other hand, it’s been a really punishing training ride the last couple of years (remember the rain and headwind stage?). Even if Andy isn’t pushing to the point of needing extra recovery time, even if he’s putting in 95% energy, while Horner is putting in 99.9%, should it really be this easy? For the whole team? For the Americans, more generally?

But then, I have to say, Radio Shack do excellent time trials, with excellent form. And that doesn’t come in a bottle or a tube. And Horner is “more better” to the same degree that the young shackies are “more better.” So either they’re training magnificently…or there’s a special place in the Hell that I don’t believe in, but wish I did, in times like these…for Bruyneel and for the older shackies, for corrupting the younger shackies. But then I go to a very bad place where I start to question all the young riders who have been in, or been in contact with people who have been in Shack (or other teams I don’t trust). And then I’m back to singing “la la la I don’t hear you” so that I can watch racing.

1. Weak climbing field at the ToC.
2. Horner’s not working for Lance anymore. I think he likes being leader.
3. Drop off in ability with age is not a straight line. Maybe he’s training better, maybe he’s eating less junk food, maybe he worked out some physcial problem that was holding him back… or of course, maybe he’s doping. But who knows really?