Yeah, it’s that time of year again. Everyone’s writing year-end round-ups extolling the many bizarre, strange or even wacky stories of 2007. But not me. Nope. Not gonna do it.
It’s certainly been a strange year, filled with seemingly never-ending stories of doping in this sport and that. At least one big name athlete who never tested positive (can you say, “Marion Jones”?) admits to having done steroids, provided by her pals at Balco during her glory days. And she wouldn’t even have piped up, had she not been caught lying to Federal agents about her involvement in a check-kiting scam by ex-boyfriend and fellow Balco alum Tim Montgomery (he of the “non-analytical” positive, although Michelle Collins was sanctioned on the same grounds before he was).
And, how much more bizarre a story could there be when baseball’s home run record holder (Barry Bonds) gets indicted for perjury, courtesy of his own testimony in the infamous Balco case? Perhaps the guy who branded the famous/infamous ball with an asterisk before sending it off to the Baseball Hall of Fame should now spring for a plaque that reads “Subsequently indicted for perjury.”? Bonds should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, but how many of us really assume that?
And, of course, poor Ian Thorpe, who was tarred by L’Equipe as a doper, when ultimately it was determined that his test results from May 2006 were due to natural causes. Even swimming’s international federation, FINA, backed away from the fight. Have L’Equipe and their ballyhooed sports writer written an apology to Sir Ian-of-the-webbed-feet? No? Didn’t think so. (I stand corrected, see Jean C’s comment to this post. L’Equipe did run a story about ASADA dropping charges against Thorpe)
No, there’s nothing to see here. Might as well move on.
Cycling, of course, had more than it’s share of doping moments. Way more. The Tour de France this year was perhaps an illustration of John Lennon’s old lyrics. “Instant karma‘s gonna get ya. Gonna knock you right on the head.” What goes around comes around, and this year, far from being less tainted by doping scandals, the Tour got even more. Is that nature’s way of saying to Tour officials, “Hey, idiots, don’t go trash-talking the winner until he’s been proven a cheat.”?
So they got a blood doping scandal ala Alexander Vinokourov and ironically enough, a testosterone scandal ala Christian Moreni. How was it Eric Boyer, the directeur sportif of Cofidis (Moreni’s team) could be so vehemently anti-doping and yet employ a rider who gets popped for doping with an easily detected steroid? Something’s not right about that, methinks. Dost the Boyer protest too much? I’m sure that now-former teammate Bradley Wiggins, if he sent Moreni anything at all for Christmas, sent him a lump of coal.
And then, of course, there’s Patrik (my-brain-has-been-addled-too-much-by-roids) Sinkewitz, formerly of the former T-Mobile squad, nabbed for testosterone use at a pre-Tour training camp. Let’s see, the team announces that they’re starting a new anti-doping program. New management comes on board to clean up the team’s collective act. What does Sinkewitz do. Umm. Dope? Exactly how stupid was that?
But you’ve got to give the guy credit. He turned stool pigeon to save his own skin, while his constant revelations about corruption past eventually cost the T-Mobile squad their title sponsor. Lot’s of team spirit in that one. I know I’d hire him for my squad, were I a directeur sportif. Yep, ol’ Patrik would be top of the list, right after his pal Christian.
And this year, for only the second time in Tour history, the maillot jaune was booted from the Tour. OK, not the jersey itself, but the rider in it, when a certain Chicken was forced to leave the coop. Allegations against one Michael Rasmussen included lying about his whereabouts. (Which he’s copped to, as far as the UCI goes, but claims the team knew where he was. And on that score, he sounds believable.) But one of the allegations, a missed doping test at the end of June sounds a little more iffy, Rasmussen having provided a Danish newspaper with a copy of the faxed whereabouts forms he sent a day or two prior to the surprise test. Something’s rotten about the Rasmussen story. But it’s still not entirely clear what — despite Rabobank’s independent investigation and subsequent report.
And, in a moment straight out of The Twilight Zone, we were also treated to the spectacle of the 2007 Tour winner standing on the steps outside Spain’s Sports Council offices declaring his innocence after a certain German anti-doping crusader said he had documentation that proved Alberto Contador was connected to Operacion Puerto.
And lest you think I’ve forgotten, there was all the drama that played out in May on the Pepperdine University Law School campus. Yep, The Hearings. Which, in a moment that was beyond bizarre included — unfortunately for all concerned — The Call. There’s no way to excuse or truly explain how that call happened, or why. Not even gonna try. But in an instant, a lot of hard work rebuilding Floyd Landis’ image came crashing down. The jackals lying in wait for a moment such as that certainly had their pound of flesh.
And, after a four-month wait, we were treated to a fine bit of legal logic (not!) in the majority’s decision to strip Landis of his Tour crown. While his case is still on appeal, the cynic in me wonders how much play it will get in the media should the Court of Arbitration for Sport ultimately exonerate him. However it goes, if that occurs, he will have served a de-facto preemptive 22 month suspension by the time it’s all over (if the decision comes in May, as some currently anticipate). Another blow for fairness by the system.
Perhaps we should have expected such contorted logic from one of the majority (Richard McLaren), after he found that Jeff Adams guilty of a doping violation, even though Adams’ testimony about how a minute trace of a single cocaine metabolite showed up in his urine after a race in Ottawa, Ontario held up under cross-examination. And even though, in a similar situation, an “able-bodied” (for lack of a better term) athlete would doubtless not test positive at all.
Finally, there’s The Mitchell Report, detailing at least some of the use of steroids in baseball. Gasp! Shock! Horrors! Again, the cynic in me suspects that, despite the efforts by a few media outlets to keep the story going, the ultimate reaction to Mitchell and Company’s work will be one big collective — yawn.
Oh, and I almost forgot. The National Football League, along with the players association, toughened up their drug screening policy. Really.
Damn, I’m in a foul mood this morning. (Not really, but this topic sure got me going.)
Probably should have taken Satchel Paige’s sage advice. “Don’t look back. Something might be gaining on you.”
In an entirely separate observation, have you ever noticed that in the latter stages of a bike race (especially crits) that the riders working up to the sprint often look back to see who’s coming up on them? Bad thing to do. Don’t look back. Just like Satchel said. Better to focus on the finish line and sprint like hell.
And that’s what I’m going to do the rest of the day, as I finish up that major writing project I’ve been working on. So close to done that I can almost see the finish line (my editor will be very very happy about that, too).
Oh, and before I forget. I hope 2008 will be a better year, with fewer doping scandals, and more joy in sports. And for everyone who reads this blog, I wish you a happy and prosperous new year. Happy New Year, everyone.
Two links abouts L’Equipe and Thorpe:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Aussi/20070330_183108Dev.html
http://www.lequipe.fr/Aussi/20071107_171821Dev.html
About Rasmussen’s affair:
http://www.nrc.nl/achtergrond/article874819.ece/English_version_the_Rasmussen_schandal
Happy New Year!
The Rasmussen link is a bit more too complex so I give an easier with this:
http://minilien.com/?TVZAu8LF2q
Jean,
Thanks for the links. I stand corrected on L’Equipe and Thorpe. Interesting links about Rasmussen too. Haven’t finished reading those yet. Most appreciated.
Happy New Year!
Rant — Floyd – William — Bill – Larry – the Dragon — TBV — ZENmud — BSMB — Jean C – and all the other people who I have had the pleasure of meeting here.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, Rant.
Happy New Year Rant. I hope your commercial writing project works half so well as this blog. Interesting place, this. If I have a 2008 New Years resolution concerning cycling and doping, I would hope that I could ride and watch without having to question whether or not some “super human” effort was due to doping or just good training: I could just assume good training!! So perhaps I should just work on my own PR’s on various rides and know the only doping involved is good beer, gin and doughnuts.
Have a good 2008.
Happy New Year to one and all.
Morgan, pommi, BSMB and William,
A happy new year to you all. May it be one filled with much joy, happiness and prosperity. And one with less stories of doping, and more of genuine athletic accomplishment.
And BSMB, I sure hope the project works out well, too. Just one more short piece on Gene Doping (whoever he is) and I’ll be completely finished. Yee-haw!
Rant,
Who is this doping Gene character — don’t tell we have some other person now in the mix? (:-) But to get serious for a moment — yeah — you’re reading it right”¦
I want to respond to the “blues” in your piece — not that I don’t find it just as depressing that we have been getting hit by stories that shatter our illusions”¦but losing illusions, while at times painful — does not have to be a bad thing, in my opinion.
It is very easy to get into “justification mode” — not that I am saying you need justification to feel disappointment with the state of cycling or other sports.
“Justification mode” is something quiet other and specific. It is when we are emotionally feeling hurt and angry by the actions of others and we feel “justified” in whatever our feelings drive us to think, feel or do.
Many people who are letting the world know how they feel on the web are doing just that. They are in pure justification mode. Including myself. I am pissed off at the way things are being handled and by the justification behind the grounds that we should be accepting of this situation.
Let me express it this way — imagine what you would feel if someone walked up to you and started slapping you about. How would most people react to such a situation? They would get very angry — the anger is a part of the survival mechanism in everyone.
Adrenaline surges and our bodies get juiced for action. There is no real “thinking” that goes on at this moment in time — there is only “reaction.” Thinking, takes too much time, our survival instinct knows that “action” is needed — adrenalin floods the system and the body is ready for action — not for thinking.
Thinking and contemplation should come later, but it is not necessarily what happens. Mostly the result of the “attack” defines what takes place after.
· If the “attacked” is victorious and the incident happens in a “public” forum — the winner is distracted by his own winning or the crowds reaction.
· If the incident takes place in isolation (like a mugging) — the intended victim may come away with feelings of gladness that he won, or feelings of a mixed nature, glad that he won but he is aware of the “fear” he just experienced, or and this is very likely — he will “associate” the incident with the “place of occurrence” and henceforth avoid ever going near the place where it happens.
· Please understand — these sample reactions are just a few of the possible variations — I do not mean to imply that these are the only possibilities — my intent is to show what can and does happen.
Now — if the “victim” losses — the reactions are mostly defined by the actions of the aggressor. While it may seem obvious that the aggressor defines the eventual outcome, what is important to note is that the “victim” goes into a secondary “survival mode” that is known as “passivity.”
It is logical that the victim reacts this way because if they feel attacked by an overwhelming force — the only possible way is to completely stop resistance, with the hope that a moment comes in the aggressors actions where “escape” is possible. So one mustn’t interpret this “passivity” as mere none-action, rather it is a state of hyper-alertness, awaiting the “moment,” to get away from danger.
Now you ask what has this to do with being in “justification mode?” Well to put it in a nutshell, consider the entire past two years of the doping situation in cycling as an assault on all the fans out there. For many the “assault” started with Floyd Landis being accused of cheating.
Make no mistake about this — whether you think Floyd Landis is innocent or guilty, we have all been under an assault – from its inception. The media slams us with sensationalized half-truths. The governing bodies encourage and use this to keep us all “reacting.” In the mean time, you have all the “people behind the scenes” who are using the perverse legal status to keep the attentions focused away from what is actually happening.
How is it that normally even-tempered people find themselves taking sides on mere emotional stances?
How is it that normal people can become blinded to unfair legal rules, procedures and accept poorly cobbled together explanations?
How is it that certain bodies are able to get away with shameful behavior in public and do not feel any pressure to correct this?
It is because we are all in “justification mode” — we are all trying to survive an assault that has been going on en mass to all of us. Some of us react one way while others react another. Some people handle threats differently from others. What is important to understand that all felt the “threat” and like I point out, we all react differently to the same threat.
Time is on everybody’s side now. The “threat” is becoming more of a commonplace occurrence. The manipulation of this threat loses the power to get mindless survival reactions to keep us “merely reacting.” In the mean time we have reacted quiet well I would conjecture. Some react by lashing out, some react by avoidance, some react by clearer thought and focus.
As Satchel Paige said — “Age is a question of mind over matter,” he said. “If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.” I will take a small liberty with this statement — “A “threat” is a question of mind over matter, if you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.” What does matter is that we do not forget that it is impossible to expect fairness and justice when the situation is itself not of fairness and justice.
The “threats” against cycling and racing have shown themselves to be much amplified and created. The cycling public has chosen not to turn away from cycling.
Yes – there are many “sponsors” that have bailed on the sport. But it is important to remember that it is the riders that make the sport of cycling a living thing, not the sponsors.
Yes – doping exists in cycling -and the public doesn’t want it. A large majority of the involved public also doesn’t accept the governing bodies methods either.
The public is demanding transparency and fairness in the realm of cycling sport and with some persistence we are going to achieve it.
Practice makes us all better — so whatever the 2008 Seasons bring up — we are definitely more prepared then we were before the Floyd Landis case spotlighted the situation.
Thank you very much Floyd, you have done us all a great service. Many people today appreciate your suffering, a lot more will come to understand what your situation meant and they will come to appreciate you in the end also.
Fate dealt you these cards buddy, only because you are deep down tough enough to do something about it. I can only have respect for that.
ah Gene Doping. Know it well.
I tested it this past fall by injecting my right thigh with a human optimized gene expression vector encoding human EPO and human HGH. I started growing hair on my ears. But once my right thigh was twice the size of my left (and I could leg press 400lbs with the right but only 160 with the left) I knew I had a winning cocktail.
Time for a whole body infusion!!! Wish me well….
Ears can be shaved – BSMB – I do it all the time – I’m old enough – but I worry about your fashion problems – I mean – it is not that easy to find a pair of pants with the above described dimensions – let alone – a tailor good enough to make it look good! Please consider the sensitivities of people around you – think of the fashion nightmares that come forth from such foix-pah’s!!! Think of the children for goodness sakes – what kind of example you are setting? One can only hope – you had the decency to stay behind closed doors during this “experimental” phase of your endevours? One may only hope so…
Keeping my fingers crossed — did you start yet?
Happy New Year Rant, Morgan, William and all the other friends I made last year on this site. Here’s hoping that 2008 will be fair and dope-free.
@Morgan
Maybe I don’t fully understand what you are saying, which is a distinct possibility.
You compare the scandals with an assault on the spectators. I agree with that when it comes down to an emotional level. As you describe it, it is very logical.
But how justified is it that we see it as an assault?
The situation you use to describe it is an actual life threatening situation. Very different from the emotional assault felt from the doping related scandals. The human system react on the first with realistic fear and its related mechanisms, in the second with neurotic fear but the same mechanisms.
The spectators like me use the riders for their fantasies of all kinds . Hero hood, identification with the underdog, to name just a few. All sports drive on it. Because of that the sportsman earns (a lot of) money.
It is difficult to identify with a sportsman who is cheating with dope, it trashes our fantasies.
So using dope is felt as an assault.
But is it that? As I said before; it is a neurotic fear.
Why don’t we have the responsibility for our fantasies? We (want to) make the sportsman into more than human don’t we?
WE MAKE this into an assault don’t we? And because we make this into an assault we scream and shout our head of on the web. We act out our anger and disappointment. Put sportsman (riders) with the trash.
When the majority of the spectators would be able to understand what they are doing emotionally things would look very different.
I know that it is very unrealistic to expect this. And maybe this has been said before on this blog (I haven’t read everything). But I think it correct to say that there is a very much joined responsibility here from everyone. And it would help enormously when we would realize this.
Growing up we might call this. Then we would not need Landis or anyone else to help us.
Would be very nice for all the Landisses of this world.
Oh
Happy new year everybody!!
Karuna,
Greetings and a very Happy New Year to you and yours.
You say — “But how justified is it that we see it as an assault?” — Karuna this is a most excellent observation and question.
Let me address the first part of your observation — “how justified is it” that we “perceive” the situation as an assault? I do not believe that the fans “consciously” — respond in the majority of times. They “react.” Their reactions will come from what “value=emotional investment” they feel for their hero/heroine. So let me break it down for you in this way,
(a) — The fan “reacts/responds” on a completely emotional level — they do not “think and then respond.”
(b) – The fan being caught up in the very real fantasy (for him or her) that he/she is projecting on to their heroes and heroines is busy being in the middle of this “melodrama.”
(c) – He/she has already taken a particular stand as far as the “hero/heroine” is concerned. In otherwords he/she loves them or hates them — it matters little which is chosen — as long as the “fan” is partisan.
You may be tempted at this point to assume that my opinion of the fan is judgmental and I am branding the fan as some sort of “unthinking” being. This would be a wrong interpretation of the above.
I am merely breaking down the possible state of the fandom. I am doing this in order to “look at the psycho-dynamics of the situation — NOT — judging the fan as being “good or bad.” I am doing this to look at the fan as clinically as possible — to “observe” what the possible activity is going on when the fan is “reacting,” simply being a “fan.”
Now I would like to answer your whole question —“But how justified is it that we see it as an assault?” — I believe “it” (the media reporting) may be perceived as an assault because,
(a) — The fan has a “personal vested interest” in their hero/heroine — that may be likened to a much loved or hated member of their own family.
(b) — Anyone whose family is attacked will feel attacked themselves — we identify ourselves with our immediate human connections.
(c) — So when a “story” comes out that a “family member” is doing something “bad” the sense of the fan is to react and hear the “BAD” in capital letters. It brings out tremendous emotional conflict.
“It” therefore may be perceived as an assault on the fan, because it is experienced so. Now understand — I am not claiming that this subjective perception is “logical” or realistic” — it is though perhaps how the fan is relating to what is going on about something they very much care about.
Next you observe Karuna —“The situation you use to describe it is an actual life-threatening situation. Very different from the emotional assault felt from the doping related scandals.” —If you go and look at the scenario again — you will note that the assault I put fort involved physical abuse — but did not imply life-threatening action. But lest you think that I am trying to get away with a “technicality” response (:-)) — let me clarify it.
Yes — if the assault was brutal and physical with the possible result of death of one or the other — the dynamics should not be used as an explanation. Perhaps if we use the situation which many people have seen or perhaps have observed or may have even been involved in — “the school-yard bully” doing his thing to a weaker schoolmate. Would this fit more your scenario?
While in one situation the fan feels attacked immediately in the other they are assaulted by an impersonal judgmental being, the writer — the fan is in both cases in a state of “reaction.” I do not think that there is much “contemplation” of the dynamics of the assault in either examples — what there is — is a powerful feeling of conflict. The “situation” has to be responded to and there appears no way out for the fan. Therefore it is a subjective perception of assault.
Your own observations clarify how the fan reacts to his/her hero/heroine — and yes — due to their “identification” with the personages — the fan is culpable to being easily “swayed” to “react” — the fan doesn’t go around knowing this about themselves — So no — the fan does not make a conscious decision to react this way — they do not “MAKE this into an assault” — it is a result of a particular situation — that of being in a state of “enthrallment – (deep emotional commitment).”
Now — I am not saying that the fans do not have a responsibility to “coming to a realization” about what they are doing. But I do feel that it is incorrect to view the “fan/hero” relationship as if it “should work” a particular way. Your view that there is “shared responsibility” can only be applied to a very slim degree. WHY?
Karuna — no two people are alike. We do not all “grow” the same way. We each and every one of us needs “life experiences” that allow us to come to an “aha!” moment — That moment when the “penny drops” so to speak and we become aware of what we are doing in relation to what is happening. This process of human development is not controlled by our age in years, rather by our emotional development inside each of us.
My attempt to give a different perspective to the present situation in cycling and sports in general was not meant as creating an “apologist” scenario for the situation or as a way of excusing anything. I do not see the situation in this “black or white” -“right or wrong”-“good or bad” manner. I believe that people who insist on seeing it only in this “either or” manner cannot see the whole situation clearly.
And finally Karuna — I would put to you that Mr Landis NOW – is very much a different human being then he way just two years ago. Just as you and I are different if our life becomes extremely intense and we are forced into a survival mode reaction. Do you see? I hope I have managed to clarify my statements, if not please respond and I shall attempt to do so further.
Just a few days late here (I’m slower than I used to be).
To Rant and ALL.
May you enjoy a Happy and Prosperous New Year.
Regards,
@Morgan
Thank you very much for your clear explanation.
I do agree with you on every aspect you commented on.
But then taking this as it is, I think that we do get in fact a perspective that shows us an (important) factor contributing to the problems for sport in general and cycling -at the moment- in particular.
I hope I can put this on paper the way I mean to, I will give it a try.
When I try to take an objective stand, as objective as I am capable of, I could say that everyone involved in sports is caught up in a web or maybe better; caught up in our own emotions.
Through (watching) sport we (lets say) try to fulfill some of our (most of the time) unconscious fantasies/wishes and dreams.
Because people are (most of the time) not aware/conscious of the fantasies, wishes and emotional investments they react upon, they tend to react far more “˜black and white’ then they might do when they were aware of these fantasies/emotional investments.
An emotional reaction is by definition a more “˜black and white’ reaction.
But these “˜black and white’ reactions have an impact on how things go in sports.
The (very) positive reactions as a result of the fantasies are of course very welcome and are for my statement here not a problem.
But the disappointed, angry, hateful and dismissing reactions tend to have (of course) a very different reaction. Most of the time they are being avoided as much as possible.
Cheating does stir up negative reactions. Very negative reactions. Far more negative than they should from a neutral point of view.
As you stated, a whole personal realm of emotions comes along with it.
Sports sail on the waves of the positive reactions. Sportsmen earn a lot of money on that. Sponsors earn a lot of money with it. Sport has its value because of the positive “˜emotional state’ it can bring about in people and the positive reactions “˜that state’ give way.
But then there is the downside, the negative reactions.
How understandable and logic it might be the fan is not actually being assaulted. The negative (as the positive reactions) reactions are overreactions concerning the actual situation.
So I think it is fair to say that the reactions are not just “˜black and white’, it are “˜overreactions’.
As I stated before the positive (over)reaction are welcome (most of the time) but the negative (over) negative reactions are being AVOIDED.
And the avoiding, how understandable it might be, gives a problem.
Sponsors, organizations and so on anticipate on the negative reactions. Cheating must stay a secret as must as possible. It is just not acknowledged enough.
For example: It might have made that he WADA came up with the whereabouts system without the testing that should have come along with it.
They might have hoped that it would frighten the athletes/riders enough so it would reduce the doping without someone testing positive on doping.
That didn’t work (of course, see later).
Everything is done to reassure the people that everything is well.
Which was nonsense? The tests were not there or not accurate enough. By the result of HT testing they could see that there was a problem.
There is a lot symbol politics, all to avoid the negative reactions.
It has to look good TO THE OUTSIDE. So people can go on thinking that the sportsman ARE heroes. So we can dream on and keep on investing emotionally.
The whole system of unconscious wishes and so on is being kept in place, in fact, as much as possible. So the sponsors fare well on it, the sport grows bigger and the money flows.
In other words, we have to stay fan and most fans are fan because of their unconscious dreams.
The unaware dreams (can) give overreacted reactions from the side of the fans, which make for desperate measures and regulations from the side of the organizations to control the negative reactions as much as possible, which do not help to fairness of the sportsman/riders.
And the sportsman/riders do they realize this?
Maybe a few. But most of them are human beings like us, so they have dreams and wishes which occupy their minds and make them as fairly unaware of the importance of their actions as we are.
They might very well be not more emotionally mature then most of their fans. Or more intelligent.
So to think that they will be guided more by moral standards, intelligence and awareness then their fans is not fair to the sportsman/riders.
The whole basis for (watching) sport is for an important part wishes/dreams which are mostly unconscious. Even the so conscious wish for a lot of money can have –to put this in short- the unconscious wish of being loved more.
The “˜sport machine’ needs these wishes. But it has a price.
The fact with thoughts and wishes which are not conscious is that you can’t get out. The only thing to do is to make diversions or “build walls”, deny, reassure etc. All strategies that might not work well enough or long enough.
The same goes for sport as a whole.
As you probably agree upon: unconscious wishes are related to fear of rejection.
Well, as so often, we seem to get what we are afraid of.
A way out?
Well it would help enormously when people COULD take more responsibility for their emotions. I agree with what you said about that and said it myself before, that is not realistic.
Although I won’t mind when it would be said more often that it is not JUST the responsibility of the sport alone how things go.
But the best would be that the organizations responsible for the sport would organize themselves and make regulations in the most strait forward and fair way possible. In fact, make it as transparent as possible; reduce the necessity for avoidance as much as possible. Be a strong leader.
It seems to me that the “damage” AND the amount of victims would then be the least even in the case of cheating.
With that I put myself on the side of the ones that defend the rights of the riders.
Because trying to take the riders down for cheating the way they do now is just another way of “˜avoiding’.
Sorry for my English, I just lack enough words, but I hope it is still readable.
Karuna,
Your English is very understandable and you communicate very clearly. The most important thing is to make the attempt, do not worry if it is not “perfect” school English. (:-))
Human beings as a whole must go through a series of “life-experiences” — for the fans now of cycling and of sport, what is going on may be looked upon as such an experience.
But having said this — May I also point out that it is not only in sports that people get caught up in “playing out” their wishes, desires. It happens in every aspect of society. Sports just happen to have a very large media access. But then so does the movie industry. In fact it is easy to observe many different variations of this “fulfillment” in other aspects of daily life. This is not a BAD thing — in fact it is not a “good or a bad thing” — “It” — (wish/fantasy fulfillment) is a very natural stage of development in every human being.
Consider it in another way — consider it as “when life’s reality — comes face to face with the `individual´ reality of people.” There is a common illusion held in general that “everybody” sees one Reality — a sort of reality that is “the Reality” — but this is not so when put to the test. In truth we are all very busy creating our own “personal realities” every second of our existence. This continues until a “significant moment” comes into existence — where “life and personal reality” – seem to reach a nexus — sometimes — this “collision of the two” is happy other times sometimes it is catastrophic. Most people wish for “happy” collisions — but when “happy” collisions occur — what also occurs is a “reinforcement” of the personal reality.”
Now — if whatever “personal reality” is being enacted – is in fact beneficial to the individual and to those around him/her — then it is generally accepted as a “good thing.” BUT — here is the down side to this. Human growth will only occur when the individual creating it gives up the “personal reality”. So in essence — a “good or happy” “event” — is not always beneficial to the people. Why? Because it does not give them a chance to “give up” on the “personal reality.” Therefore the (pr) just keep continuing.
Think of this in this way, a child does not like to be told “no.” — It does not matter to the child if the “no” is not meant as a negative — rather as a caution. The child perceives it as — NO! — Every time a child gets away with beating the “no” — he/she feels good — he/she has “won.” So — is the child actually having a “good/happy” reinforcement experience? No. But the child “feels it” as good or happy.
Now — here is the “human nature part” — the child also feels great feelings of guilt. One aspect of the child “knows” that the “no” was meant for his/her own good. The only time a child does not – is when the child is mentally ill and is referred to as a psychopathic personality — in essence, such a being has no inner sense of connection with anything but what he/she thinks and desires. Fortunately, these types of personalities are not the common.
So how does this apply to what is going on in the current sports situation? Well — as you point out — “But the disappointed, angry, hateful and dismissing reactions tend to have (of course) a very different reaction. Most of the time they are being avoided as much as possible.” — AGAIN – here we must be careful. We may not forget, that each moment of every day, the ENACTMENT of wish/fantasy goes on continuously. And YES professional sports, Cycling, theater, films, novels, comic books, news articles, advertising, ad nausea — “use this” to their advantage. Some are more manipulative then others. Some are manipulative in “good ways” others are manipulative in “bad ways.” So to think of this in the manner as “either or” will not bring one to clear understanding. Rather it will produce an understanding that is either “for or against” what ever the subject may be. This is referred to as “biased and subjective.” Because “understanding is colored by the “likes and dislikes” of the individual reacting to the situation. Do you see?
Let me put forth this — WADA is totally presenting itself as AGAINST DOPING. Okay — nothing wrong with that. BUT — when WADA creates rules that are aimed at “winning at all cost,” when they accuse someone. The “fairness” that is necessary for evenhanded governance is sacrificed. Why? Because the aim is not to have “fair governance” but rather to be “winning at all cost!” — The normal rights of an individual — is in fact the COST in this particular choice.
I would not want you to think that I am against people having “hero’s and heroines” — as I’ve said before — people “need” such things. The question of the ethical use of manipulating the fan’s vested interest in a particular sport is in my opinion, another topic completely.
When raising a child — FEAR is a tool that I do not normally agree with. It forces a child to form a barrier against what is feared and the personal reality becomes merely more entrenched. So — When you say that WADA came about with the “whereabouts system” with the hope of “putting fear” in the athletes against cheating — I think it is a rather ineffective use of the tool of the “whereabouts system.” I can see that such rationalization would be behind such an action — but in truth — it creates an adversarial situation right from the start. If you want someone to “feel” good towards a system then “fear” is a very poor tool. It makes the person under such rules react with rebellion. Just study some societies where stringent rules that try to control aspects of the individual’s life — you will discover that there is a tremendous amount of “rule breaking going on.” In otherwords, cheating. Human beings do respond to “fairness and even handedness.”
As to the “politics of looking good.” I believe the question should be, if we are being sincere and honest and not merely being “politically correct,” do we want to stop doping? If we do, then make clear and fair rules. Create governing bodies that are not biased towards fulfilling their own personal agendas. Naturally — TRANSPARENCY — must be in action in every facet of this process. Why? Because — people are people and they will each slide into fulfilling their own personal realities no matter what their station — it is inescapable. As long as they have not had the experience of the “aha!” moment — one may “expect” whatever from them — but the expectation should not be taken too seriously.
In conclusion — it is my opinion that what is happening in cycling is not a “bad” thing. It is PAINFUL — but not a bad thing. It is the way that we have to “work through” the problems of doping and cheating in cycling. No, it is not pretty. BECAUSE individual personal fantasies are coming face to face with the generally accepted realities we wish to exist in. We all agreed that doping and cheating is not an acceptable aspect of sport. EVERYTHING that is transpiring now is merely the minute´ of detail that needs to be “looked at” directly — we don’t necessarily “want to look at it,” but the reality has come to the point, where we must — if we wish to achieve our desire for a clean and fair system in sport.
It has been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you Karuna.
Morgan & Karuna,
I have enjoyed your conversation.
I think you folks might be overthinking things. Although, less so with cycling.
There is a major difference in the way doping issues are handled by the Major Sports League’s. The primary reason IMHO, is they have a Brand to protect.
Take Baseball for instance…I submit this ALL (Mitchell Report) came about because the Baseball Union (the most powerful in Sports) had a tin ear to calls for testing, and had to be bullied by Congress to come to the table. Also, baseball, being the singular sport where records are sacred. While baseball management and the Press cannonized Bonds, McGwire & Sosa when they were hitting ALL those home runs, the ground shifted when it looked like Bonds was going to break the most Hallowed record in the books. Hank Aarons home run record.
Is baseball going to lose anything fan wise from this debacle? Not on a dare. Will fans question some players? Probably, yet just about every team has someone named, and all charges are 5 years old.
Football, American Style…Anyone with a hand full of gray cells (4 or more) knows that many players are onto something. Biggest controversy last football season, when Shawn Merriman got a 4 game suspension, was not should he be banned for a year or life, rather should he qualify for the Pro Bowl or Defensive Player of the year. Even cheating is not a big deal. Bill Belecheck was fined $500,000 for cheating this year, and yesterday was named Coach of the Year.
The fans/supporters of cycling are likely no different. In the 2007 Tour, there was a scandal a day, yet depending who was doing well, contrary to the doom and gloom predictions, TV viewership was up in several countries.
This is a manufactured crisis, in fertile territory, with the UCI vs. Grand Tours. Both are using doping and their stances on doping in their turf battle.
Bottom line…The casual fan want’s a spectical…the ardent fan wants their hero to win.
At least that’s my view,
Dragon,
I see your point – but I believe Karuna and I were more about discussing “perceived consciousness” – and how the individual perhaps becomes aware of his actions…you are right in the end though.
Having said this – I was not exactly comfortable in going into great detail – BECAUSE it is not the right place for such a discussion – I am open to discussing this topic further with Karuna – he is intelligent and I find his thinking stimulating.
It is – as you say, a “manufactured crisis” – it is about grabbing power – it is also about people who are in position to “muddy” the situation for exactly the way it has been so that every time an athlete is accused “attention” is taken off of some other point…
At least – we have managed to get our voices heard enough that they cannot simply get away with the crap that they have gotten very used to doing – at least not as easily as before! I for one do not mind battling this BS one step at a time – inch or centimeter – and I guarantee you Dragon – I intend to keep “squeaking” till something gets done about it!
Sorry man – I just realized – I came very close to getting “roid rage” there for a moment….man – this whole situation just really pisses me off.
Go Floyd!
Morgan
I find our conversation also very stimulating. Thank you for it.
It seems our conversation is “˜off topic’, but is it?. I realize I don’t bring (much) facts. Not even really an opinion. I just try to bring an alternative perspective to look at (for me the most important) cycling and what is happening concerning cycling which might add something to the discussion.
I agree with you that the whole phenomenon of fulfillment of wishes is something we see everywhere in society. But since it is also true for sport I took sport because this is what we are talking about.
And I took the fans as a starting point because they are the ones who keep things going. Without the dreams of the fans sport would not be so big or even existing at all in a commercial sense.
I think it is fair to say:
The basis of (watching) sport is the fulfillment of (mostly) unconscious wishes.
Of course, the wishes will be different for every person. And the reactions when challenged will also be different for every person depending on a lot of things for instance emotional investment on the wishes. The only common ground is here that we can say that (mostly) unconscious wishes are at work.
And that these wishes are being used.
I like to say that I agree with you that I should be careful not to say that, having and/or using the wishes, is a good or bad thing.
I definitely did not mean to do so, although my choice of words might have given that impression. And it is true that at times I get fairly pissed about reactions from fans like: “ban them all for life” and “they are all bastards” etc and feel more than enough anger to put a mirror in front of their nose.
As I can still get angry when I hear Prudhomme say: “This is the best thing that could happen to the Tour (after banning Rasmussen)”.
But it are also exactly these expressions which got me thinking. So I think I might have proved your point when saying that we all can learn from this period in cycling.
Okay. So. Where I tried to find an answer to is:
What kind of “˜dynamic’ does these unconscious wishes bring about? What is the EFFECT of this dynamic? Who gets affected? In what way? What does it mean?
I suspect we talked enough about what “˜the dynamic’ is of the fan is: possible overreaction when the wishes are challenged.
So lets take this a little broader. And go on with: What is the EFFECT of “˜this dynamic’? Who gets affected? In what way? What does it mean?
And again in the form of questions.
As I already said in a former post, I think the negative reactions of “˜the dynamic’ of the fan is tried to be avoided by the organizing bodies.
-But are the people of the bodies (and the labs for that matter) not also reacting from the same “˜dynamic’?
-Isn’t “˜the avoiding’ in itself not a symptom of “˜the dynamic’. The same way the fan keeps his eyes shut? So:
-Are it just the fans who are reacting from “˜the dynamic’?
An example:
I think it is fair to say that when the whereabouts system was introduced it only could be really successful when the tests would come along with it. Your explanation about the failure of the introduction just for the sake of creating fear was very correct. It was hopelessly naïve to say the least and doomed to create the opposite effect.
-So: Why not better prepared and find money somewhere to have the manpower and perform the out-of-competition-test that should have come along with the whereabouts forms?
-Only bad management? But then still: why bad management? Only stupidity? Hmm I don’t think so.
Maybe I am not aware of all kind of facts and circumstances that influenced this strange way of introducing. But could it be there is more than just facts and circumstances?
-Could it be that somehow “˜the dynamic’ is at work here too?
Maybe through the way of –avoiding- or maybe (also) through the a direct effect of “˜the dynamic’ in the people of the bodies involved.
When “˜the dynamic’ is more important than we hope for the people of the bodies (and the labs) could there be an “˜overreaction’ as we can see in the fans?
Since all the confessions of doping use this last year there is no hiding anymore. The “˜avoiding’ doesn’t work enough anymore.
-Do we see “˜the overreaction’ from the bodies now?
-Could it be that what we feel as –the riders involved have to be found guilty at all costs- is in fact an overreaction by the bodies resulting from “˜the dynamic’? Or is it still trying “˜to avoid’, which is also related to “˜the dynamic’?
When you take the Rasmussen case as an example it seems to me a combination of “˜overreaction’ and “˜avoiding’. Certainly from the sponsor the Rabo bank.
I absolutely have no way of knowing if “˜the dynamic’ has a role when talking about the bodies (and the labs).
In a way it is obvious to say: of course might there be an influence. Trying to kick open an already open door.
But acknowledgment of “˜the dynamic’ for the people of the (bodies and the labs) we also acknowledge that there might be an “˜OVERREACTION’ at work which is definitely not favorable for the riders.
And might very well give an (partly) answer to the discussion on the other topic on this blog, the one about Landaluze.
Will riders be treated fairly when there is an “˜overreaction’ at work?
I think not!
So has the WADA reason to make unfair regulations? From a factual point of view probably not.
Have labs and their lab workers reason to disarrange lab findings? From a factual point of view probably not.
But taking “˜the dynamic’ in account it is a possibility. Certainly because “˜the dynamic’ comes from an UNCONSIOUS level. Most of the time, they are not aware of it.
It’s understandable, (almost) unavoidable and logic but still of importance and undesirable.
Oh, by the way, it’s not problem what so ever, but I am not a he but a she ïŠ
@Dragon
This is a manufactured crisis, in fertile territory, with the UCI vs. Grand Tours. Both are using doping and their stances on doping in their turf battle.
I agree. Nice working environment for a rider isn’t it. 🙂
Morgan
Oh, by the way, it’s not problem what so ever, but I am not a he but a she 🙂
The 🙂 from my word program disapeared when I submitted it here.
Karuna,
As you’ve discovered, you just need to type the standard emoticons and WordPress (the software that powers this site) takes care of the rest.
I’ve been enjoying reading the correspondence between you and Morgan. You’re very articulate and write well in English, despite your own modesty in a previous comment. If I could write in your native language nearly was well as you can in mine, I’d be quite happy.
Rant
Thank you, I am learning.
And thank you for this very nice blog. I am very much enjoying it 🙂 !
(:-) — Hi Karuna — I suspected as much — If you don’t have a problem with being female — I certainly don’t. (:-)))
I am not so certain that our “conversation” is off topic — it is just that perhaps I have become more used to discussing it on a much simpler level? You may have noticed that except for Dragon — no one else was “jumping in” — and since the Rant-Line is not my private “chat-room” I felt a bit uncomfortable — I think perhaps we have a little different “slant” on looking at things — and I did not wish to foist this on every one. So — please do not take my reservations as too definitive? My motives were pure in that “communication” should be done in the “language” that is being used.
But let me respond to your statements. —“But are the people of the bodies (and the labs for that matter) not also reacting from the same “˜dynamic’?
— Yes — I do think that the “governing bodies” — who themselves are composed of individuals — are not able to escape the “dynamics” — BUT — unlike the “fan” who mostly remains “faceless” — the “governing bodies” have an “authoritative core mask” to hide behind.
—Unlike the “fan” — the “governing bodies and labs” — have their own “sub-group” identity — which they don’t necessarily consciously realize but which automatically sets them apart and allows them to “function” from a state of “authority.” Is this a “real perception?” or is it merely another manifestation of the “fantasy journey?” In my opinion it is, as you say, part of the “dynamic.”
You further state,—“Isn’t “˜the avoiding’ in itself not a symptom of “˜the dynamic’. The same way the fan keeps his eyes shut?”
—To this statement of yours, I can only respond with some assumptions. I do not see clearly your “logic” in stating it. But let me try. Now — if you mean by —” Isn’t “˜the avoiding’ in itself not a symptom of “˜the dynamic.'” — Is the reactions of the governing bodies another variation on what the “fan” is doing, meaning, reacting to their own personal biases — then YES — The “governing bodies and labs” are no more “conscious” of their motivations as are the fans. I am assuming of course that you infer with, —” The same way the fan keeps his eyes shut?” — that the fans are mostly reacting unconsciously.
—However, there is a major difference. That difference is that the “governing bodies and labs” are more then merely individual fans that are caught up in their personal “melodramas/fantasies.” In the case of the “governing bodies and the labs” — these individuals are expected to be able to function in such a way that their own “melodramas/fantasies” do not impinge on the whole.
—Our “expectations” of them being able to function in this capacity is legitimate because the “work” they are involved in is not merely for their own “self-fulfillment,” rather they are in positions where they should be conscious that they are in the service of the whole, not merely themselves. Do you see?
—You are pointing me to your conclusion when you further state, —“Are it just the fans who are reacting from “˜the dynamic’?” — To this I would have to say a direct no. The “fan” is not “having to be responsible” for the governance of another group — while the Governing bodies and labs” are.
Now we come to this group of statements from you, which begins with, —“So: Why not better prepared and find money somewhere to have the manpower and perform the out-of-competition-test that should have come along with the whereabouts forms?”
—Indeed — this would be the intelligent way of making this happen — but if we are to seek truth by looking at “what is done — rather then what is said,” we are left with only one singular conclusion. The people involved are simply not intelligent people, and they are willing to sacrifice their responsibility to the “whole” by only addressing their own personal needs, they cannot see a gain in honoring their positions.
—Now — there may be a “purpose” behind their lack of clear thinking or means of behavior — but how are we to know this? All we may do is draw “assumptions.” Assumptions are not facts, and if we draw them and present them as “facts,” we lower ourselves to the same level.
You then, in question form state, —“Could it be that somehow “˜the dynamic’ is at work here too?”
—I apologize to point out Karuna, that this observation is a repetition of the above observation you make — in essence it asks the same question — does the “dynamic exist” even for the “labs and governing bodies?”
—The “difference” Karuna is that the “gb’s and labs” are not in place and in position merely to provide them with “stage” specifically made for their individual fantasies. Their “positions” in society come with “built in” responsibilities that surpass their own personal fantasies, and, the “expectation” that they be able to fulfill this is not unreasonable or undoable.
You further state, —“Maybe through the way of –avoiding- or maybe (also) through the a direct effect of “˜the dynamic’ in the people of the bodies involved. When “˜the dynamic’ is more important than we hope for the people of the bodies (and the labs) could there be an “˜overreaction’ as we can see in the fans?”
—If you mean by “over reaction like the fans” that the “gb’s and labs” may use the same “excuse” — I would have to respond by saying this is spurious logic. It ignores the very real “responsibility of their positions” to be able to use this kind of “excuse.” They have taken on the mantle of being “authority” — since they have, then they also must take on the responsibility of the position.
You continue, —“Since all the confessions of doping use this last year there is no hiding anymore. The “˜avoiding’ doesn’t work enough anymore. -Do we see “˜the overreaction’ from the bodies now?”
—I agree to a certain extent with your statement as it is presented, but no wholly. But perhaps this will address your observation?
—The “avoiding” of the fan to look at his situation in relation to the “rude awakening” of “doping and cheating” is not the same as that “avoiding” of the “gb’s and labs.” The “gb’s and labs” have been “caught” not doing their jobs — while the fan is “caught” by his “personal reality conflicting with what is the true state of affairs. These cannot be seen as the same.
You continue with, —“Could it be that what we feel as –the riders involved have to be found guilty at all costs-is in fact an overreaction by the bodies resulting from “˜the dynamic’? Or is it still trying “˜to avoid’, which is also related to “˜the dynamic’?”
—The reactions of the fans are quiet understandable. They don’t like it. No one likes being “wakened from a “sweet dream.” Do they? Is this also a part of the “dynamic” as you ask? Yes it is. There is no conflict here.
—But the reactions of the “gb’s and the labs” must not be accepted — precisely because they had tried to make their “public service” positions their own “personal reality.” This is a terrible misuse of their position and obvious responsibilities.
You say, —“When you take the Rasmussen case as an example it seems to me a combination of “˜overreaction’ and “˜avoiding’. Certainly from the sponsor the Rabobank.”
—Now you are addressing the very essence of the present problem. If you understand that “responsibility” comes with holding positions of power — then one has to react just as you have stated. But may I point out to you Karuna, that in this case “overreaction and avoiding” are subjective observations on all our parts. Why? Because we have in place “rules and laws” that are not concerned with “fairness” but rather with the intent that the “governing bodies and labs” win when they accuse someone. This form of governance is a direct misuse of the position of power that these people hold, a direct betrayal of their office.
You continue with, —“I absolutely have no way of knowing if “˜the dynamic’ has a role when talking about the bodies (and the labs).
—This in my opinion is not exactly true. We would all have a “basis” of truth to work from if the “gb’s and labs” had done their jobs as they rightfully expected to do. The fundamental problem lies with the rules and laws that are in place. They are slanted and unfair. Rules that deny an athlete the right to defend himself against an accusation in a free and clear unobstructed manner result in exactly this situation.
You opine, —“But acknowledgment of “˜the dynamic’ for the people of the (bodies and the labs) we also acknowledge that there might be an “˜OVERREACTION’ at work which is definitely not favorable for the riders.”
—I believe I have pointed out the difference in the roles of the fans and the “gb’s and labs.” To reiterate — the “gb’s and labs,” while consisting of individuals, may not have the same “liberty” to act on their own personal fantasies.
—To use an example — it is not an unreasonable “expectation” that when you get on a bus or into a taxi you can “rightfully expect” that the driver drive. Yes? So if the driver decides that he can also read a magazine while he is driving — it would not be unreasonable to state that he is not doing his work properly as expected. No? The driver is an individual person, who knows that he has certain responsibilities. WHEN he decides that he can read and drive at the same time — he has completely abandoned this responsibility and reverted back to “living out his personal fantasy.” Such actions must not be allowed to be made acceptable!
You come to an end with this, —“But taking “˜the dynamic’ in account it is a possibility. Certainly because “˜the dynamic’ comes from an UNCONSCIOUS level. Most of the time, they are not aware of it. It’s understandable, (almost) unavoidable and logic but still of importance and undesirable.”
—Karuna, I agree with you that the “unconscious” tends to rule all individuals. BUT I cannot agree with your reasoning. We all have “awareness” more or less. May I point out to you that the “fan” or the athlete is not sitting in the chair that is held by the governing bodies and the labs.
—You start out by comparing the fans, athletes and governing bodies and labs and make the assumptions that all are the same. They are the same only in that they are all people. But each of these “types” of people play out different roles – all having different “responsibilities” to one another. I hope I have managed to point out to you that they are not all the same with same expectation of performance. One can freely pursue his “personal fantasy” projections onto their “ideal hero athlete” — the fans role in this case is passive is passive. The athlete has no power over the governing bodies and labs, therefore their role is passive.
—But the “governing bodies and labs” are holding positions where the rightful expectation exist that they are capable of functioning in their roles. They betray the “trust” that is inherent to their position when they respond by claiming and acting that their roles allow them to enter their own “personal reality dramas.”
It has been a pleasure discussing this with you.
Morgan and other who care to read this of course.
I am sorry it took me so long to come up with a responds, I am a little busy.
I hope no one minds that I pursue this a little longer. I will try to show my point and finish up my side. .
Although –point- it is more an observation of which I don’t know if it is of any value, I will leave that up to you to have an opinion about.
An observation that came from — me trying to make sense out of what is happening to sports in general and cycling in particular-.
I got involved in the Rasmussen case and learned more and more about the regulations and especially the lack of proper regulations. I can give you a whole range of examples that got me on my feet, outraged at times and left me staggered. I will not bore you with examples, you have your own which point to the same thing.
To put it mildly, things don’t seem to be organized very well. When you really take a good look at the regulations I think nobody will dispute that they are far from clear, far from consistent, transparent etc.
That struck me as a little strange. Of course, it is a distinct possibility that the people at the gb’s (and labs) are incapable for their jobs. But then again, SO MANY of them?
So I came to look for another maybe supplementary reason.
Looking at what is happening concerning rules and regulations it seemed to me that there is more “˜REACTING’ going on then “˜reasonable thinking or neutral and necessary policy making’.
Years ago Hein Verbruggen (former UCI president) said: “You should not ban the toppers, that is not good for cycling”.
Now every rider who is remotely connected to doping is banned or his life is at least made miserable. So taking – a sort of overall view- there was in the past
-a NOT addressing doping enough and now
-what looks and feels like a kind of overreacting and putting the riders at forehand in the accused position.
How come?
-The doping is worse? I don’t think so to be quite honest. I think doping has been there as long as there is the possibility of doping.
-There were not enough possibilities to test the riders (sportsman) for doping?
True, but then again, why not be better prepared when tests came available and have the means, resources and regulations at place BEFOREHAND, so you can make use of the tests as soon as possible?
Looking at it from (what I think is) a neutral point of view with good and clever policy making it would not have gotten as far as it is now .
So same question – only incapable people at the top- ? It’s possible that is just it.
But there, maybe partly, an alternative possibility – the regulations and the way they are implemented are (also) a result of “˜the dynamic’-
Let me state here that I of course agree with Morgan that gb’s and labs are in a role that give them more responsibility we should hold them responsible for. No doubt about it. I do that every time I write on the Dutch blog I am posting on. No dispute there what so ever.
I agree that the people of the gb’s and the labs should stay as free as possible from their own possible fantasies like -the “˜hero’ who gets things done, the respected father figure- (where they are disappointed in by the doping and the cheating).
But when we look at things can we say that they stay free enough?
AND, couldn’t the avoiding of the negative reactions of “˜the dynamic’ of the fan play a role?
The fan Morgan says is in a passive situation when it comes down to being “˜in power’. No dispute there again. The fan and the riders are on the lower end of the food chain concerning being “˜in power’.
But that doesn’t mean the fan is without power or that their action have a passive effect.
Let me put it like this.
When the fans would keep their mouths shut when disappointed or only voice it to friends and family nothing would happen. But the fans don’t (of course). The individual fans form the public opinion which is often tremendous. Sportsman/riders are judged by the public opinion in a way which is far from fair. It is of great influence for the lives and carriers from riders. From this point of view the fans are not “˜in power’ but they do have a great deal of power.
-Especially when the people of the gb’s are practicing –avoiding the negative reactions-.
Then we have a situation where no one is actually taking the neutral position out of which the rules and regulations should be born.
In my observation “˜the system as a whole’ seems (in reality maybe partly) to drift on the web of the melodrama’s /”˜the dynamic’ (of fans and (possibly) added with the melodrama’s of the people of the gb’s and labs).
Obviously not the best situation we can have.
WHEN my observation is correct that –what is happening in cycling (and maybe sport as a whole) is far more influenced by “˜the dynamic’-.
If so we don’t have a solution but we do have a place to start.
The way out of this is in fact not all that difficult.
-The people in charge should be as emotionally mature as they are intelligent (don’t they always, but let’s not drag the rest of the world into this). Because the emotional factor could be far more important than we might realize.
-They also should have the guts to stand up to the reactions of the fans and NOT grant the wishes for retaliation of the disappointments. As Morgan stated, we are unconscious most of the time of our wishes but most of us have (at times) more or less awareness of them. How understandable and logic and so on the reactions from the fan are, they are to my opinion “˜overreactions’.
In short: they should stop — avoiding (the overreactions of the fans) – .
Avoiding only puts oil to the fire and justifies the reactions of the fan at an unrealistic level.
So stop making rules and regulations with “˜the dynamic’ as a — (too much taken into account) starting point-.
-Take a far more realistic stand and voice – although we want the riders to be heroes they are human being with their weaknesses-. Again, also fans have moments with more awareness then they show, we all know when we think about it that they are not (moral) superman.
-And come with something that will give HOPE. Like the bloodpassport. But ohhh, be more realistic about it. It looks to me it’s now introduced as THE solution which it will not be for some time. That it will not be a solution is another topic so I will just make the statement.
-Make the rules regulations and regulations as fair as possible, even if that means that some riders will get away with cheating. Unfair rules and regulations can be just as disappointing from the position of unconscious wishes as dopers can be. Unfair regulations give people like me more feelings of –wanting to turn my back on cycling- than the dope users. I get disappointed by dopers but not by – the whole/the cycling as sport-. Unfairness of the system concerns –the whole-. Then when I look at cycling I see an unfair world, which “˜disappoints’ my (often)unconscious wishes. I rather have an individual doper a few times a year. With a good system I can trust is fair. And when voiced clearly enough this would help to, let’s say, educate the fans a little. And with hopeful and a little more trusting fans the sponsors have no reason to leave the sport.
Of course I am not trying to say that I am right about my observation. Far from it. What I do mean to say is that IT COULD BE MY OBSERVATION IS PLAYING HIS PART.
And then the emphasis should not be just on the intellectual level, it concerns also the emotional level.
To my opinion we need people at the top who understand “˜the dynamic’ and its effects on all levels.
So to summarize my long posts, I think that it may be so that a part of the problem is not of intellectual origin, it’s psychological/emotional and that this part might be far more important than we give it credit for.
I enjoyed this conversation very very much. It made my brains “˜crack’ as I am used to say and that is one of my favorite things.
So thank you Morgan and Rant (and others of course) for giving me this opportunity.
Karuna,
Very nicely put – but perhaps you are not looking at this close enough? The GB’s are not “elected officials” firstly. The way the whole set up is built, the GB’s are “appointed.” The IOC is a “major player” in this whole set up. Then you have all kinds of Governmental Agencies involved too. In short Karuna – it ain’t a “democratic system”
I find you stake on the situation really nice – I even agree with your hypothesis mostly. Where i don’t is where I believe you are not aware of some realities. But please don’t take this as a criticism rather it is more a finger pointing to what needs to be looked at.
On another thread here – Michael brought up the subject of “true-believers” – this is a slang term for fanatics or zealots – such people do not wish to see the world in harmony – rather they want it to be just the way they judge the world to be right. “Their right” – now that does not leave any room for anyone else.
the Rasmussen case really bothered me – I think Michael was terrific and they stole the yellow off his back! BUT – I do not know details! As far as I know – what “sunk” Michael was lying – that is all. Nobody could get past this. In my heart – I so hope that Rasmussen could somehow make a “comeback” – I would take no end of pleasure whachting him stuff that nickname down the collective throats of the whole bunch!
Karuna – our “conversation” – exchange of ideas, is not the normal way that the blog communicates – I responded to you in this manner because I understood your “language” – but let me encourage you to keep writing to the Rant Line. and if you blog give us an address to write to – it is a very small world. In some ways.
Again, it was great pleasure to make the grain cells “crackle”.