Tejay van Garderen pulls out of Olympics due to Zika virus threat

Leviathan wrote:

@Colin, that is a very pedantic definition of trolling. Unconstituted knows that TJ will never see this post, he is trolling us, the forum readers. His comment is insidious; he is implying that TJ is a drug cheat and sewing seeds of doubt over his decision; his wife is pregnant, that is a fact. Freedom of speech is wonderful, but it is not a licence to make cheap accusations, or go unchallenged. 

Get a grip. Who are you trying to impress with the righteous indignation act? Professional athletes making odd excuses and getting out of the testing cycle do not get my benefit of the doubt. You can suck up anything they say or do, that's your prerogative. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't have a more cycnical view and scrutinise every move they make, if we're so inclined.

Take your weird, angsty faux outrage and go beat a wife or whatever it is holier-than-thou types do behind closed doors.

Rio is a huge opportunity, people don't drop out if they really don't have to. Wife's pregnant? Zika virus? Lap it up.

unconstituted wrote:

go beat a wife

Wife's pregnant? Zika virus? Lap it up.

I stand by my assessment. Troll.

Leviathan wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

go beat a wife

Wife's pregnant? Zika virus? Lap it up.

I stand by my assessment. Troll.

Cringe.

By all means, be cynical about professional cyclists. That's a fair approach to take, given the sport's past. But that's very different from instantly assuming that somebody is doping.

David Walsh makes the point well: he points out that the doubts about Armstrong were never just "he must be doping because he's doing so well", they were based on solid evidence including eyewitness testimony, a failed test covered up, dealings with Michele Ferrari etc. Just assuming that a person is doping is every bit as lazy as those who closed their eyes to Armstrong.

As far as I know, TJvG has never been involved in any suspicious findings, activities etc. There have been no good grounds to suspect him of doping. So the assertion that his withdrawal translates as not wanting to be tested relies on the suggestion that anybody withdrawing from Rio on the grounds of Zika must be lying.

We can't judge this by what we think of Zika: there are people out there who are so stupid they think childhood vaccines cause autism (or who are so stupid they vaccinate their children, thereby risking their lives, whichever you prefer). People with pregnant wives will often take extreme steps to avoid exposure to potential health risks, real or perceived.

You seem to doubt whether his wife is pregnant. This should be fairly obvious within a few months. If it turns out she got pregnant around now then that might aid your suspicion (but by no means prove it). If she's been pregnant for a while then it would have to be a pretty well planned "not up for testing". [EDIT: according to a quick Google check, she's due in October, so presumably they've been planning this doping overdose for about 5 months. He's also not going to the Worlds because they clash with the due date. I assume you'd say that this is also because he's planning to be over-doped?]

On which note, if the Olympics are such a big deal that nobody would possibly pull out for fear of Zika (let's ignore the golfers who've done the same and the large number of doctors calling for the games to be cancelled for exactly that reason, because neither of those things could possibly affect van Gardener's decision, could they?), why would he conceivably allow himself to be in a situation where he has to withdraw over a month early for fear testing? He's open to out of competition testing anyway and he'd have to be pretty dumb to dope to the extent that he'd have to miss the Olympics, especially if they're such a big deal that nobody (except golfers and doctors) would pull out for fear of Zika.

So yes, be cynical. But don't confuse healthy cynicism with assuming that a person is doping and then turning that into a fact. Try actually thinking about it for a moment. Maybe he is doping. It wouldn't surprise me for a moment. It would surprise me if that's the reason for this withdrawal.

unconstituted wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

@Colin, that is a very pedantic definition of trolling. Unconstituted knows that TJ will never see this post, he is trolling us, the forum readers. His comment is insidious; he is implying that TJ is a drug cheat and sewing seeds of doubt over his decision; his wife is pregnant, that is a fact. Freedom of speech is wonderful, but it is not a licence to make cheap accusations, or go unchallenged. 

 

Get a grip. Who are you trying to impress with the righteous indignation act? Professional athletes making odd excuses and getting out of the testing cycle do not get my benefit of the doubt. You can suck up anything they say or do, that's your prerogative. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't have a more cycnical view and scrutinise every move they make, if we're so inclined.

 

Take your weird, angsty faux outrage and go beat a wife or whatever it is holier-than-thou types do behind closed doors.

 

Rio is a huge opportunity, people don't drop out if they really don't have to. Wife's pregnant? Zika virus? Lap it up.

unconstituted wrote:

Read: I'm really not up for testing right now.

Trolls are just scum.

Leviathan wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Read: I'm really not up for testing right now.

Trolls are just scum.

What does that even mean.

unconstituted wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Read: I'm really not up for testing right now.

Trolls are just scum.

 

What does that even mean.

I don't think he's worried about testing. But I also think that calling someone a troll like this is wide of the mark.

It's a lazy way of putting someone down because you don't agree with their opinion. And it's pathetic.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Read: I'm really not up for testing right now.

Trolls are just scum.

 

What does that even mean.

I don't think he's worried about testing. But I also think that calling someone a troll like this is wide of the mark.

It's a lazy way of putting someone down because you don't agree with their opinion. And it's pathetic.

Pathetic? So you think it is alright for someone to suggest that TJ's decision to protect his unborn child is an excuse to hide drug taking. Colin, I though you at least had some sense.

Leviathan wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Read: I'm really not up for testing right now.

Trolls are just scum.

 

What does that even mean.

I don't think he's worried about testing. But I also think that calling someone a troll like this is wide of the mark.

It's a lazy way of putting someone down because you don't agree with their opinion. And it's pathetic.

Pathetic? So you think it is alright for someone to suggest that TJ's decision to protect his unborn child is an excuse to hide drug taking. Colin, I though you at least had some sense.

You are putting words in my mouth, or at least making an assumption. People have a right to say what they want. If they want to say stupid things then so be it. But trolling is a bit more insidious because the authors target their victim/subject, and the two should not be confused.