Ricco Suffers Kidney Failure After Transfusing His Own Blood

[MartinC]

Right, I've been away for a long weekend. Let me pick my way throught the hyperbolic convolutions that followed my post abot Cav's comments on Ricco. People seem detremined to go off one one - that seems to be part of the problem whenever drugs/doping get mentioned.

My post reflected my disappointment at Cav's comments - they were inapproprriate and crass. I'm disappointed because they show him in a bad light - he's a talented rider and an engaging personality but's he's got an unfortunate tendency to come across as the whinging pom which I thought he was growing out of.

He's a world class rider and thus represents his country and his sport whenever he speaks in public. Other riders can condemn doping without indulging themselves in vindictive and smug comments. Cheap shots always make the giver look cheap.

Apart from being an inappropriate reaction it also comes across as sanctimoniuos because:

He's shown that he's not averse to bending the rules himself. For those of you determined to conflate my comments about the drugs/sprinting offences - the only way that the two are similar is that they're both against the rules. So although the offences may differ significantly in magnitude, disregarding one so that you can have a go at someone else invites the accusation of double standards.

He comes from the nation that gave cycle sport Tommy Simpson and an albatross round it's next ever since. This wont be lost on many outside the UK.

As far as I know no-one has made similar comments about people close to him, and I hope it stays that way too.

 

[mangaman]

He comes from the nation that gave cycle sport Tommy Simpson and an albatross round it's next ever since. This wont be lost on many outside the UK.

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK is seen as nation of dopers because of Tommy Simpson??

I think the French, Spanish, Germans, US, Belgians, Dutch, Kazhaks, Columbians etc don't have to look far for loads of doped up riders.

Why does the UK have an albatross round it's neck??

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Of course it's crass. Cav is Mr Crass. He shoots his mouth off on occasions, and often says things that other riders won't say but they are probably thinking.

And the point about sprinting is that it's about split-seconds and all kinds of stuff goes on - and whether something is daring or illegal often comes down to the varying and subjective opinions of race commissaires - and they will generally be against race rules, that is they are not thought to be against the whole sport, hence there will be a minor penalty applied and, the next day, they carry on.

It's not about careful premeditated activities sometimes over years involving conspiracies of dirty lab scientists, theft of experimental drugs in order to gain illicit advantage, in other words what the French call 'sporting fraud' - which is BTW a recognised criminal offence outside of the sport's own rules in many countries.The sport's governing bodies don't recognise these things as comparable, the law doesn't recognise them as comparable - because they are not comparable.

BTW, Tom Simpson died 40 years ago, and what 'many outside the UK' will know very well is that it was a time when drug use was almost universal in the peloton and accepted amongst riders.

 

[yello]

Once a dickhead, always a dickhead.

Who? Cav?

I kind of agree with Martin, Cav's comments were a bit ott. Sadly, it's what we've come to expect from him. Way he is, part of what makes him who he is.

 

[Padbeat]

... the hyperbolic convolutions that followed my post abot Cav's comments on Ricco...

The only hyperbolic posts I saw were the ones from you. I thought the rest were fairly reasoned and argued comments on your lack of proportion

My post reflected my disappointment at Cav's comments - they were inapproprriate and crass. <snip!> ...he's got an unfortunate tendency to come across as the whinging pom which I thought he was growing out of.

Well fair enough, I can sort of see your point, but I think we all lost that point when you drew parallels between aggressive sprinting on the hairy edge of the rules and drugs cheating.

(1)He's a world class rider (2)and thus represents his country and his sport whenever he speaks in public. (3)Other riders can condemn doping without indulging themselves in vindictive and smug comments. (4)Cheap shots always make the giver look cheap.

(1) Agreed
(2) I think that's debatable. He chose to be a bike rider, not an ambassador. If people want to hold him up as a representative of a country that speaks it's mind, plays reasonably fairly and gives it's genuine opinion, fair enough, but he only represents his country in his national colours.
(3) And occasionally give an opinion which sounds like their own rather than a press release, or is so mealy-mouthed that they might be planning second careers as politicians. But only occasionally.
(4) Disagree. I think it showed clearly his genuine feelings on the matter. And does Ricco deserve a critical analysis or should he be dismissed out of hand?

<snip>(5)He's shown that he's not averse to bending the rules himself. (6)For those of you determined to conflate my comments about the drugs/sprinting offences - the only way that the two are similar is that they're both against the rules. (7)So although the offences may differ significantly outrageously <FTFY>in magnitude, disregarding one so that you can have a go at someone else invites the accusation of double standards.

(8)He comes from the nation that gave cycle sport Tommy Simpson and an albatross round it's next ever since. This wont be lost on many outside the UK.

(5) Again I ask to which incident you refer? Deviating from the line? Dangerous sprinting? I think the 'opposite ends of the scale' argument from FM covers my point more than adequately.
(6) erm ... I'm fairly sure that the first person to conflate the two points was you. Everyone else was responding to that!
(7) No, not really. It's more that it allowing one to prevent you stating an opinion on the other would end up with the whole peleton gagged. An analogy - If a Prop Forward has conceeded a free kick two seasons ago for interference, should he not be allowed to comment on someone else's cynical use of a faked blood substitution to win a game?
(8) I think that that was so long ago, to such a relatively minor figure in the Tour (from a European perspective) and in such a different atmosphere that it barely registers. Do the French give a damn that Jaques Anquetil supercharged his way to victory?

 

[MartinC]

Oh for goodness sake. I made the point that I thought Cav's comment was a sheap shot and also tried to illustrate why others might think that it was more than just an issue of taste. Cue lots of nit picking, meretricious, hysterical, selective, interpretive, ad hominem, straw man, double standards and invalid extension type arguments.

Cav's comment was crass and tasteless and most people will dismiss it as just normal British yobbishness. Which is a shame for everyone involved. Just move on - there are now even more pressing issues for the more excitable amongst us.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Oh for goodness sake. I made the point that I thought Cav's comment was a sheap shot and also tried to illustrate why others might think that it was more than just an issue of taste. Cue lots of nit picking, meretricious, hysterical, selective, interpretive, ad hominem, straw man, double standards and invalid extension type arguments.

Er, no.

A lot of people disagreed with you and are entitled to respond to your posts.

 

[Padbeat]

+1

 

[MartinC]

Er, no.

A lot of people disagreed with you and are entitled to respond to your posts.

Er, no. I posted that I thought Cav's comments were ill advised. I don't recall anyone posting that they disagree with this. Most of the responses to my post seem to have focussed on being outraged at the great leaps of inference the posters have taken from some of the peripheral points in it. I would have been far more sensible for me not to have responded to them.

You're doing it again (and so am I!). I haven't said or implied that no-ones entitled to respond - merely that I didn't think some of the responses made much sense.

It's what Scott Adams called Proximity - there are just some subjects that he wouldn't touch in a Dilbert cartoon, not for any rational reason but because they were too close to issues that people got so excited about he would just be drowned in the howls of imagined outrage.

 

[BigSteev]

In better news, Vaconsoleil have kicked the cheating scumbag off of their team.

 

[mangaman]

Er, no.

A lot of people disagreed with you and are entitled to respond to your posts.

Exactly.

You come across as someone who thinks they are a moral arbiter.

Everyone else seems to disagree with you - maybe you just ought to have the humility to agree with Cavendish, who I believe knows infinitely more about cycling than you?

(nothing personal - just you haven't won multiplle stage race finishes and Milan San-Remo - Cav may not be univerally liked in the Peleton, but he is one of the very best riders around. I'm sure every DS would sign him in an instant.)

Without being rude, I suspect he probably knows more than you of the goings on in the inner circle of the Peleton.

Cavendish has made himself pretty clear.

Generally I'm sick of the Landis / Hamilton / Botero / Heras / Di Lucca et al, "the dog ate my homework" excuse for testing positive.

(I picked those names randomly - I could have continued without troubling cyclechat's lawyers with hundreds of names)

A superstar in the Peloton (Cav) openly dissing his colleagues is great, I believe. It makes a change.

I can't understand why you disagree with Cav's opinion of Ricco. He wishes him all the best in recovery, then slags him off.

As for the people equating Cav's agresssive sprinting to Ricco's doping - I'm a bit speeechless!

I wonder if you've watched a sprint anwhere?

Especially a pro-sprint in a grand tour - frankly it's a physical sport (with the arms as well as the legs.)

Frankly to equate competing to to the max. in the normal finish to a bike race (a sprint) to Ricco's multiple doping convictions - seems to me offensive and ignorant.

 

[MartinC]

Managman, everyone's entitled to their opinion. There's been a lot of people disagreeing with things I haven't said though.

Like you I'd view Cav 'dissing' Ricco positively - it's the way he's done it that's a problem. It's a shame that he's turned down an opportunity to make an effective rebuttal for an attempt at some offensive schoolboy humour.

All I said was that Cav's comment was inappropriate and reflected badly on him. Most of your post is arguing against a point I haven't made.

"equating Cav's agresssive sprinting to Ricco's doping". I'm not aware that anyone's done that. I made the point that if, rather than making a reasoned criticism of another's behaviour, you chose to go for a cheap shot then you invite the criticism that you're not perfect yourself and you lose the impact your comments could've had. Obviously it was too subtle a point for the atmosphere of this thread.

 

[fozzy]

i know what your trying to say martinc, don't think your actual point is being understood [no offence intended, calm down]. also just wanted to say to mangaman, again no offense but, what are you saying peoples opinions here are not worth the same as a pro riders? that we should agree with someone due to them being in a proffession that we are not? whatever the job may be? because if this is your point, i'd have no view worth listening to on 99.99999999999999999999999999% of jobs out there as i only do 2.

 

[Padbeat]

Entertaining, but a tad sanctimonious. Ricco is a serial cheat and should be punished. Cavendish has himself been sanctioned for cheating. I know Ricco's offences are tainted with the moral panic that surrounds drugs but Cav's offence is the same as an illegal tackle in rugby - it can leave a fellow sportsman dead, disabled or out of the game for a while. People seem to be making nice (in the old sense of the word) distinctions about types of cheating and nationality.

I appreciate that this post won't be popular but people should look at the whole picture not just cherry pick bits that reinforce their indignation.

You seem to be equating one with the other there, don't you? Or at least drawing parallels between them. I think Cav reacted from the gut and spoke his mind in an entirely characteristic way. He could have said the same thing much more politely but it's clear that he's disgusted with Ricco, and that's fair enough.

And you're right, it wasn't. So why are you surprised when others take umbrage at what appears to be a deliberately inflammatory post?

 

[BJH]

Having read through this thread I am seriously struggling to see any relevance between Mark Cavendish and a cheating drug taking multiple offender who will be no loss to cycling.Reality is that they have history and don't get on, so Cav was never going to be the person who gave Ricco an easy ride.
How they could ever be compared on any level is ridiculous.
Some time ago, I posted on the site of a well known cyclist and asked him why he didn't rage against drug cheats on the basis that if someone cheated me out of anything in my work, I would be screaming the roof down. No response apart from the standard type of denial.
The reason the press have asked people like to Cav to comment is that they know he's clean and he expresses the type of anger you should naturally expect of a clean rider.
Maybe it's reading to much by David Walsh and Paul Kimmage, but I find the other riders reaction to be the best clue about them. Bradley Wiggins was very strong on comments about having been forced to struggle on major climbs being ridden by cheats at ridiculous speeds and was clear on what should be done about them. Look at the comments riders make who have been beaten by cheats, its the biggest clue you will ever get.
On the riders site I mentioned above, I note he has been named again and I also note he has not responded the way I would expect a normal person to do.
This for me is like the Michael Jackson case. He paid money to a kid and his family who made accusations about him. The reasoning behind this was to avoid the terrible publicity. My reaction at the time was that I would lose my house and everything I own to take that case to court if I had been him. Likewise, if someone cheated me at my work and forced me to work twice as hard, the minimum they would get back would be an absolute clear message and preferably a smack in the face.
On that basis, I welcome strong comments, it shows the rider cares and offers the best clue about how clean they are.