Christophe Bassons : charged and banned

[Orbytal]

On the other hand you could answer questions in a civil manner instead of just accusing those who post them of being lazy and stupid.

FWIW I did look back through your posts to find some reference that I had missed (and that presumably that Rich P had ignored).... but I didn't find one, hence the question in my first post on this thread.

The reference for the context of the post was made in the post and repeated in replies and I still get 'rubbish' 'unsubstantiated' etc. and also your own reply. All comments made as an attack had absolutely no relevance to what has been posted but some are happier to attack than ask and/or look it up. Basically throw bricks first and ask later which if I take offence to makes me? Human I suggest!

In the past I have spelled out the detail in posts and I am then told they are too long keep them down, so I keep them down. Now I get spell it out even though the question you asked had been answered more than once.

So what is the answer for you to be happy!
Should I just roll over at irrelevant, uneducated and unsubstantiated comments or stand up to them?
Should I have to spell everything out or leave something for those interested enough to look into?
Should I have to keep repeating myself because some on here don’t wish to take time to look into the details?

I shall be interested to know your views.

 

[PpPete]

I am not aware of having attacked or insulted you in the past ... so I'm wondering where the above rant comes from.

However to try and substantiate your contention that the French believe it is acceptable to dope on the strength of some comments allegedly made decades ago by Charles de Gaulle to Jalabert is bizarre to say the least. To do so in a thread about a French rider who most believe is "clean" smacks of xenophobia.

 

[Orbytal]

I am not aware of having attacked or insulted you in the past ... so I'm wondering where the above rant comes from.

However to try and substantiate your contention that the French believe it is acceptable to dope on the strength of some comments allegedly made decades ago by Charles de Gaulle to Jalabert is bizarre to say the least. To do so in a thread about a French rider who most believe is "clean" smacks of xenophobia.

Perhaps when you go back and read what has actually been posted you will be as quick to apologise as you have been to accuse when you realise I have not made the accusations you have alleged! You appear to wish to attack than read and understand what has been stated!

"Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise abroad?" are the actual words, not allegedly stated so you may wish to research your comments better before making incorrect assumptions/suggestions.

You also wish to contest the validity of my post which is factual whilst your own comments are based on your own opinion that you can neither support nor deny, straight out opinion! There is nothing wrong with that apart from when you wish to dress it up as substantiation to comments you do not agree with!

I would go further to point out that if you wish to exclude my post as irrelevant then you should also exclude the whole discussions and debates around the EPO era also as irrelevant. If we have world leaders applying an indignant view to doping and win at all costs how exactly do you believe the people of France and beyond will see it? How do you believe Cycling viewed it for years on end, maybe, just maybe there is a link somewhere? Maybe in years gone by TDF Organisers gave riders the drugs and then decided to stop, what do you think?

I would point out that the argument for the rider you wish to claim was clean was in fact sanctioned under the WADC Rules for contravening their doping regulations which somewhat undermines your whole belief in this matter!

Finally I shall make it quite clear that accusations of being a racist are not something I either take kindly to or tolerate. I trust you shall take time to consider your accusations and offer the appropriate apology in your reply?

 

[beastie]

Perhaps when you go back and read what has actually been posted you will be as quick to apologise as you have been to accuse when you realise I have not made the accusations you have alleged! You appear to wish to attack than read and understand what has been stated!

"Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise abroad?" are the actual words, not allegedly stated so you may wish to research your comments better before making incorrect assumptions/suggestions.

You also wish to contest the validity of my post which is factual whilst your own comments are based on your own opinion that you can neither support nor deny, straight out opinion! There is nothing wrong with that apart from when you wish to dress it up as substantiation to comments you do not agree with!

I would go further to point out that if you wish to exclude my post as irrelevant then you should also exclude the whole discussions and debates around the EPO era also as irrelevant. If we have world leaders applying an indignant view to doping and win at all costs how exactly do you believe the people of France and beyond will see it? How do you believe Cycling viewed it for years on end, maybe, just maybe there is a link somewhere? Maybe in years gone by TDF Organisers gave riders the drugs and then decided to stop, what do you think?

I would point out that the argument for the rider you wish to claim was clean was in fact sanctioned under the WADC Rules for contravening their doping regulations which somewhat undermines your whole belief in this matter!

Finally I shall make it quite clear that accusations of being a racist are not something I either take kindly to or tolerate. I trust you shall take time to consider your accusations and offer the appropriate apology in your reply?

Jesus, six paragraphs of bollocks to say very little.

Edited by Mod to remove duplicate quote

 

[Orbytal]

@beastie....thanks for the name association I doubt however I could manage the water into wine trick, but I shall try!!

Nice double post though, for effect or volume? Points viewed, noted and binned!

 

[beastie]

@beastie....
Nice double post though, for effect or volume? Points viewed, noted and binned!

Fat fingers on the mobile. Your concise retort is
Greatly appreciated.

 

[fossyant]

Can we get back on topic - this is supposed to be a discussion about Christophe Bassons getting a drug ban, but oh no it's turned into a bun fight again. Like the school playground this. He said that, she said this. FFS.

Give it a rest and get on topic.

 

[Orbytal]

I am not aware of having attacked or insulted you in the past ... so I'm wondering where the above rant comes from.

However to try and substantiate your contention that the French believe it is acceptable to dope on the strength of some comments allegedly made decades ago by Charles de Gaulle to Jalabert is bizarre to say the least. To do so in a thread about a French rider who most believe is "clean" smacks of xenophobia.

Just a few words below from Bradley Wiggans for you to chew over Pete. I assume that I/we can I expect to see your accusations of Racism on his Facebook and/or Twitter later today?

The attitude to doping in the UK is different to on the Continent, where a rider such as Richard Virenque can dope, be caught, be banned, come back and be a national hero.

@ Flying_Monkey, rich P, Alun, beastie, tigger, Noodley (aka the bandwaggon brigade)

I would be very interested to know how you all feel about Bradley as he appears to share my own comments on the matter, the ones you all appear to have great exception to!

Should I/we expect to see all of your posts on his Facebook and Twitter accounts as well or shall you just let it pass there and on here without comment? Your thoughts are awaited with interest!

 

[thom]

Mods, @fossyant, if there is another post with no reference to Christophe Bassons' situation, can we just lock the thread please ?

This subject is the last place that I thought would become the new lets have a pop at each other thread.

 

[PpPete]

Well for one I didn't accuse anyone of racism, nor do I intend to in the future
I said, if you could read, that your posts come across as xenophobic.
There is a difference, whose subtlety clearly escapes you, between criticising and arguing against a point of view, and insulting the holder of that point of view.
I don't deny that Bassons was sanctioned under the WADA code, but to suggest, as you appeared to do yesterday morning, that he therefore must be a doper because all French riders consider it acceptable to dope.... well, words fail me.

Just don't go on cycle touring holiday in France would be my advice.
As for the "bandwagon brigade".... well, Rich P certainly tours in France, and AFAIK, has yet to get to punched on the snout, which is what is likely to happen to you, should you venture such opinions over there.

 

[fossyant]

We will lock the thread.

We still have point scoring going on. One more and it will get locked, and that includes everyone. What is it with some people ? Use the ignore button or just don't rise to the bait - all of you.

Can't we possibly discuss anything sensibly in Pro-Cycling, especially when drugs come into it.

 

[Scoosh]

< Mod hat ON>

Final warning all ! If you wish to discuss the Christophe Basson's situation, you may continue so to do - PROVIDED :
- you keep to the T & R of CC
- you keep your posts relevant to the discussion about CB

I f individuals are unable to comply with either condition, they will be banned from this thread.

If individuals continue with the playground name-calling, they will experience the same joy.

We are watching this thread - and the contributors - closely, so if you are unable to restrain yourself, we will do it for you.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Thank-you, Mods.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

WADC Rules state every athlete is responsible for everything that enters their body. They also clearly state what is required of an athlete with respect to doping controls. Get any of them wrong and you are treated as if you doped anyway, hence the punishment.

Your last statement is not actually true. The punishments are hard 'pour encourager les autres', and rightly so. It's quite clear that he broke the rules, but there is also some scope for leniency and explanation and he got the least punishment he could get because it was accepted that he had not intended to avoid doping controls. If he was being treated 'as if he had doped anyway', he would have received a two-year ban.