Cycling forum - Doping "speculation"

oscarBravo

cunnifferous wrote: »

Ban and infract people if they say 'yes he is a doper' but surely people can talk about whether they believe someones performance is suspicious without libeling anyone.

If I state that a named cyclist's performance is suspicious, what interpretation other than a suspicion of doping could be inferred from that?

pelevin

For clarification purposes, though i don't know if this thread is still alive or not, if I say "I find it hard to celebrate So-and-So's performances in this race." Surely legally here there is absolutely nothing that can be legally got at. Or if blatant irony is employed, where again scepticism is implied but there is literally nothing to get one's teeth into legally.

If not overdoing the above, is this ok? That one is very conscious of the exact words one is using, and avoid anything of any threat legally.

Beasty

If you are doing it to point the finger of suspicion then don't be surprised if a mod sanctions it

The mere fact you are asking the question suggests to me that this would be the case

I would add that we would also look at a poster's history - if there's a record of doping speculation and a poster comes along with something along those lines the mods are more likely to suspect that's what the poster is getting at

The solution is of course simple - don't attempt to circumvent the rules by trying to use wording that you think is "clever"

Henlars67

It seems that it is now not OK to say you don't want to see a rider win because he supported and defended Armstrong.

I've been banned til the end of the Vuelta for just that.

Surely no cycling fan want to see those who defended Armstrong winning.

It doesn't amount to doping speculation.

Beasty

Henlars67 wrote: »

It seems that it is now not OK to say you don't want to see a rider win because he supported and defended Armstrong.

Then why refer to Armstrong? You were pointing the finger of suspicion - guilt by association. There was no need to make that post and there was a clear implication that you considered the rider in question to have benefited from doping

As I mentioned in my previous post - don't allude to such stuff, that way you avoid the ban - from the forum charter

However if a rider has not been proven to have doped, do not even hint at they may have.

If however you consider the ban unfair and wish to appeal it, you should PM the mod who banned you and if not satisfied can then start a dispute thread

Henlars67

Beasty wrote: »

Then why refer to Armstrong? You were pointing the finger of suspicion - guilt by association. There was no need to make that post and there was a clear implication that you considered the rider in question to have benefited from doping

As I mentioned in my previous post - don't allude to such stuff, that way you avoid the ban - from the forum charter


If however you consider the ban unfair and wish to appeal it, you should PM the mod who banned you and if not satisfied can then start a dispute thread

Because I don't want to see those who defended him have success.

Different people like and dislike certain riders for lots of reasons.

I dislike riders who defended Armstrong.

Therefore I hope horner doesn't win for that reason.

It isn't doping speculation to say so.

I fully understand the rules and why they are there, but if I cannot mention Armstrong and a current rider in the same post without being banned for doping speculation, then the problem is with the mods and not me.

I explained this in a PM and the mod was to get back to me, that was 2 days ago.

Couldn't be bothered with a dispute thread.

Beasty

Henlars67 wrote: »

Couldn't be bothered with a dispute thread.

That's your prerogative, but this is Feedback and not Dispute Resolution, so I'm not going to discuss the specifics further here

CramCycle

Henlars67 wrote: »

Because I don't want to see those who defended him have success.

Different people like and dislike certain riders for lots of reasons.

I dislike riders who defended Armstrong.

Therefore I hope horner doesn't win for that reason.

It isn't doping speculation to say so.

I fully understand the rules and why they are there, but if I cannot mention Armstrong and a current rider in the same post without being banned for doping speculation, then the problem is with the mods and not me.

I explained this in a PM and the mod was to get back to me, that was 2 days ago.

Couldn't be bothered with a dispute thread.

Apologies, Responded by PM

mitosis

oscarBravo wrote: »

Accusing named individuals of cheating at a sport is defamatory. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it: it's defamatory. If you can't have a conversation about the sport without defaming people, then you're doing it wrong.

And yet it goes on on the soccer forum here. Specifically naming clubs and players. Is that not just as actionable?

jinkypolly

Is there really an army of lawyers reading through the Boards forums waiting to pounce on speculative posts, all eager to sue and shut down the Boards forums? Or is it a case of maybe just maybe the mods and admin are over estimating the importance of Boards in the grand scheme of things. Are there any examples of forums been just down in Ireland for similar reasons due to over eager litigious lawyers?
Now I'm obviously not privy to the behind the scenes machinations of Boards, maybe lawyers are in touch regularly and if that is the case then the stance on speculation is definitely justified.

Beasty

mitosis wrote: »

And yet it goes on on the soccer forum here. Specifically naming clubs and players. Is that not just as actionable?

Have you reported the posts?

Beasty

jinkypolly wrote: »

Is there really an army of lawyers reading through the Boards forums waiting to pounce on speculative posts, all eager to sue and shut down the Boards forums? Or is it a case of maybe just maybe the mods and admin are over estimating the importance of Boards in the grand scheme of things. Are there any examples of forums been just down in Ireland for similar reasons due to over eager litigious lawyers?
Now I'm obviously not privy to the behind the scenes machinations of Boards, maybe lawyers are in touch regularly and if that is the case then the stance on speculation is definitely justified.

It's the case that the owners have taken a decision that they want to mnimise the risk of potential litigation.

AstraMonti

How's talking about potential dopers different to talking about allegations for PMcQ? None of them have been proven yet but we are allowed to talk about it because another site posted it?

Beasty

AstraMonti wrote: »

How's talking about potential dopers different to talking about allegations for PMcQ? None of them have been proven yet but we are allowed to talk about it because another site posted it?

That was a link to a public document and a summary of what it contained. There was some discussion about the possible repercussions if the allegations were ultimately proven to be correct, but AFAIR no-one actually stated within the forum that the allegations were correct (or indeed that they believed them to be correct)

mitosis

Beasty wrote: »

Have you reported the posts?

No, I don't have any reason to do

Beasty

mitosis wrote: »

No, I don't have any reason to do

That forum has upwards of 3,000 posts some days. There's no way the mods can see them all and if it's not reported it's unlikely to be actioned (unless it's in a thread that the mod is posting in anyway)

Beasty

Just to put this in perspetive, if you do a site-wide search using the term "doping" (which will include variations including "dope" which is often used in a different context), there are over 12,000 results, of which 3,426 are in the Cycling forum (and bear in mind many more examples will have been deleted), 610 are in Soccer and 528 are in Athletics/Running. This is a particular issue with the cycling forum (which does allow discussion of anyone who has been proven to have doped) and it really is a pain for the mods particularly when the big races are on. As I have stated already the approach taken to stop the speculation is implementation of site policy, and the zero-tolerance is something we simply have to apply otherwise the modding becomes virtually impossible

LeoD

I presume the rules are the same even for convicted dopers? ie: Fresh doping speculation about riders returning from a doping ban such as Basso, Contador, Valverde, etc.

Beasty

LeoD wrote: »

I presume the rules are the same even for convicted dopers? ie: Fresh doping speculation about riders returning from a doping ban such as Basso, Contador, Valverde, etc.

Yes - you can call them a "proven doper" but in the absence of any new positive tests you cannot suggest they are currently doping

ROK ON

Beasty wrote: »

That was a link to a public document and a summary of what it contained. There was some discussion about the possible repercussions if the allegations were ultimately proven to be correct, but AFAIR no-one actually stated within the forum that the allegations were correct (or indeed that they believed them to be correct)

There are a few points that I would like to point out:
1. If it is simply the case that the owners of the site have decided as part of their strategy & governance that they have zero risk appetite for litigation arising from libel and slander than that is something I accept and applaud. They have a clear understanding of what risks they want and don't want - many firms should be this clear. If this is indeed the case then the mods on every forum should state this simply. Case closed.

2. I suspect that the above is only partially the case. That allegations have been apparently made on some forums without reproach and are clamped down on others is deeply inconsistent. Particularly so when there is a common linkage in germs of moderation (ie Beasty as mod and CMod).

3. The fact as the above quote from Beasty to my mind suggest that it is ok to allegedly accuse PatMcQuaid of corruption but be unable to express surprise at certain riders activities is deeply hypocritical.

Beasty - I support your public expose of the sham that is PMcQ. However a cynical man would read the above post by you and your actions in moderating discussion of suspicion in road racing and could come to the conclusion that you are incapable of acting proportionately due to your anti PMcQ agenda.

To my mind if we can refer to documents that allege that a person is corrupt then we are entitled to look at past data of cheats and compare/contrast present performances against that metric. To me the latter is on less legally shaky ground than the former.

I think that in terms of risk mitigation it is far more likely that Boards could end up sued by McQuaid as opposed to Froome or Horner.

If I am reading your post above correctly then in my humble opinion you have lost complete credibility as a mod. Which is a shame given the obvious work that you have put in and what has been in the past a highly principled stand by you on many issues.

Thanks.

CramCycle

ROK ON wrote: »

There are a few points that I would like to point out:
1. If it is simply the case that the owners of the site have decided as part of their strategy & governance that they have zero risk appetite for litigation arising from libel and slander than that is something I accept and applaud. They have a clear understanding of what risks they want and don't want - many firms should be this clear. If this is indeed the case then the mods on every forum should state this simply. Case closed.

That is pretty much the case, in fact that is the only case, those are the rules, as mods we try and follow them as best we can.

2. I suspect that the above is only partially the case. That allegations have been apparently made on some forums without reproach and are clamped down on others is deeply inconsistent. Particularly so when there is a common linkage in germs of moderation (ie Beasty as mod and CMod).

We are volunteers and unfortunately will not catch everything, those forums with posters with an interest in the rules will generally appear to be more heavily regulated as often if a post is not reported, then nothing will be done.

Beasty - I support your public expose of the sham that is PMcQ. However a cynical man would read the above post by you and your actions in moderating discussion of suspicion in road racing and could come to the conclusion that you are incapable of acting proportionately due to your anti PMcQ agenda.

In this scenario you will find that barring something that warranted immediate attention, Beasty stated in thread that he would not moderate that thread due to his close association with the matter at hand and PM'd all the moderators with the same message. If there is something there that you think falls foul of the rules, report it.

Beasty

I'm going to excuse myself from further contribution to this thread given it has turned into a discussion about the McQuaid threads. As pointed out by CramCycle I have made clear pretty much all along that I was not actively modding any of those threads (other than stuff of an admin nature). If anyone has any concerns about anything I have posted then feel free to report any of my posts and let the other mods act on them as they see fit

dedocdude

Beasty wrote: »

Have you ever heard a TV commentator suggest a rider is doping?

yep - u just have to understand the language - generally u can take it quite literally

"Rider X is doing an unbelievable ride"

returnNull

Henlars67 wrote: »

Surely no cycling fan want to see those who defended Armstrong winning.

Surely you should really learn how to separate a cyclists opinion from their ability till proven otherwise?

Henlars67

returnNull wrote: »

Surely you should really learn how to separate a cyclists opinion from their ability till proven otherwise?

Not really sure what you even mean by that.

I can't stand him because he defended Armstrong right up until he actually admitted doping, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Horner's ability has nothing to do with why I dislike him.

His defence of the biggest fraud in the history of sport is why I despise him.

CramCycle

posts like that probably belong in the Armstrong thread along the lines of "IMO, this rider does not deserve to win anything because he is an Armstrong supporter".

The posts you are referring to though, that you had made, as I said before were way off topic. A detailed explanation of why your post was deleted and you were banned till the end of the Vuelta have been given. I recommend if you have such a strong view that I was incorrect please go through the DRP as, after going back and reading your post again, it in no way comes across as you didn't want him to win because he backed Armstrong.