Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Michael Weiss [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
Slowman wrote:
i'm not saying that we all should forget his bust. just, that there's a line somewhere between remembering and stalking and i don't know where it is but i get the sense we may be across it.


I get that sense too. For example: his run was great, but when you see that there was a 1:11, a 1:12 a 1:13 and a female ran a 1:18 you get a sense that the run was short. But people would rather blame it on repeated cheating?

It's not just this one result that has people rolling their eyes, he ran 1:11 at Galveston then 1:10 at St George right before this.

Strava I Instagram I Team Every Man Jack I PM me for 25% off discount code at everymanjack.com
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I need to get me some of these Tuesday meds people keep talking about. lol
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kirsty, first off congrat's on the win.

But FYI "people in (moral) glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Maybe those folks suffer the same cognitive dissonance you suffer from, there are plenty of folks on here that would skewer you for your recent coach choice, just saying.

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [tilburs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tilburs wrote:
Kirsty, first off congrat's on the win. But FYI "people in (moral) glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Maybe those folks suffer the same cognitive dissonance you suffer from, there are plenty of folks on here that would skewer you for your recent coach choice, just saying.


lionel has been the source of - as far as i can tell - unfounded insinuations of doping pretty much from the time he burst onto the scene. you were his coach or at least coaching advisor, no? how did that make you feel? i don't know who anybody's coach is these days, so i don't know what you're referring to, but i think that's what kirsty's referring to: the selective decisions to display moral outrage, and the selective decisions to consider performances evidence of doping (lionel is usually first on the list when it comes to this bullshit). there's a lot i could say about this, because we (here at slowtwitch) get into the weeds when we investigate anti-doping, but i don't see that further detail would be helpful. just, yeah, kirsty is in my view spot-on when it comes to what certain pros in our sport decide to decry, and what they decide to overlook.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: May 29, 18 10:19
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
fine. but then everyone who gets popped gets banned for life. fine with me. i've got no problem with that. but that means everyone. and that's really not what the anti-weirs crowd seems to want. my problem is not with banning weiss for life. my problem is with banning only weiss for life. and for only tweeting about him.

Dan,
Have you ever done a poll on the sentence for dopers that get caught? Perhaps I am wrong but I would expect a very high percentage of folks to be in a favour of a 'ban for life' on the first offence. Is this not the case?
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
the selective decisions to display moral outrage

This is simply what I am driving at.

Please let's not confound insinuation with a track record of served ban and utter lack of acknowledgement of guilt.

To answer your question..... I advised him for over a year, spent a lot of time in his company working face to face and frankly I paid no heed to "insinuation" because I got to see the work done and the data and the historic data and more importantly get to know the man beyond simple triathlon chit chat. I am comfortable with my integrity and his. As to what others think of me for that, not my concern.

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [tilburs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tilburs wrote:
Slowman wrote:
the selective decisions to display moral outrage


This is simply what I am driving at.

don't you think that's what kirsty was driving at?

tilburs wrote:
Please let's not confound insinuation with a track record of served ban and utter lack of acknowledgement of guilt.

which pro are you talking about? because, i think that's the point here.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: May 29, 18 10:43
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Culley22 wrote:

As to your question (what if you said...): I wouldn’t care. I cant control other people’s thoughts. But if my position had people to have greater suspicion I was a dog beater...then I would expected such “inklings”, they come with “my position”, I expect them from some and they wouldn’t have me too worried as long as I knew I was clean.


i know you're not going after weiss. in fact, i'm not sure, but i might be agreeing with you about weiss, as far as it goes. and, no, you're wrong. if your whole neighborhood, your whole city, your whole county, thought you were beating your dog, when you knew you weren't, you'd be pretty unhappy, both at the situation, and the agent who was responsible. it was my impression you were making insinuations at certain others, who have not been implicated in the least. perhaps i misread you.

tilburs wrote:
To answer your question..... I advised him for over a year, spent a lot of time in his company working face to face and frankly I paid no heed to "insinuation" because I got to see the work done and the data and the historic data and more importantly get to know the man beyond simple triathlon chit chat. I am comfortable with my integrity and his. As to what others think of me for that, not my concern.

Holy SHIT, pretty much the exact answer I gave...and yet no downplay of this response? No dismissing of it as "no, you're wrong"?!?!? Too funny.

Dan, does two people answering the same way show that MIGHT actually be how people would respond? Or are more people needed to assure this?
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First: your ears must have been ringing because as you were responding to me I was looking up your results. Nice win this weekend! you racing townelake tri this year? Bridgeland? I don't think we've ever raced?

On Weiss I don't think we are that far off. I am fine with eye rolling. But I don't think you can take these results and say he is running on Gomez's level which is specifically what Clarke said. And I don't think that hyperbole serves a purpose when there are legitimate complaints about him.
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
QUOTE "i really don't believe what i'm reading here. i'm hoping there's some sort of language (and culture) breakdown. if you're going to express concerns about the righteousness of certain athletes, you'll need to bring hard evidence."

How can you post this saying I need evidence yet the post of a picture is a bunch of number we see ever race of a swim time, bike time and run time ( that lead to wins) that says must be cheating???

this is very hypocritical that posting some ones NUMBERS is saying they guy is a cheat but others have the same numbers so they are clean???

you can say he is cheating but to say look at these splits he must be cheating but to not call out anyone else with the same splits is a bit off.

QUOTE "but any suspicions we had remained between us, because what if we were wrong?"

That's adding to my point a pro can't call out one pros race splits and say CHEATER.
When a dozen other guys have the near exact same splits but they are NOT cheaters. You just said what I said if you say one looks suspicious then call them all out but you maybe wrong.

His past no one can defend maybe??? but he hasn't got caught in triathlon and TRAITHLON is letting him race so fight the system.

( side note) I don't like him or his past just objectivity about splits matching doping allegations. You should be questioning Will Clarke he posted it???

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [tilburs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tilburs wrote:
But FYI "people in (moral) glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Maybe those folks suffer the same cognitive dissonance you suffer from, there are plenty of folks on here that would skewer you for your recent coach choice, just saying.
Man, I could not agree more. I'll take a doper over a sexual predator.
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks! I’m not sure we have, I haven’t raced a lot. I’ve usually taken the summer less seriously training wise, so never in good shape for most of the local races. That changed this year when I got ITBS and had to defer my IMTX entry to Maryland (turned out to be blessing in disguise after seeing what happened there). Anyway, I know I’m doing buffalo springs in a few weeks then Maryland. We’ll have to see how much or little desert dude wants me to race leading up to that (sept 29).

Strava I Instagram I Team Every Man Jack I PM me for 25% off discount code at everymanjack.com
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [tilburs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There seems to be extensive virtue signalling, moral relativism and some cognitive dissonance knocking around here

Apparently a clothing line from a doper is an outrage. Workouts scribed by a sexual predator are ok.........

I am going to have to seriously think this shit through.

Would I rather my daughter's wore a dopers clothes or be coached by Sutton..........

Edit. Cue the responses citing revisionist history, his mea culpa, how there is no moral equivalence blah blah blah

If I choose to exercise my right to be coached by Sutton i would also choose to keep my mouth shut about others exercising poor judgement
Last edited by: Andrewmc: May 29, 18 13:22
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triathletetoth wrote:
QUOTE "i really don't believe what i'm reading here. i'm hoping there's some sort of language (and culture) breakdown. if you're going to express concerns about the righteousness of certain athletes, you'll need to bring hard evidence."

How can you post this saying I need evidence yet the post of a picture is a bunch of number we see ever race of a swim time, bike time and run time ( that lead to wins) that says must be cheating???

this is very hypocritical that posting some ones NUMBERS is saying they guy is a cheat but others have the same numbers so they are clean???

you can say he is cheating but to say look at these splits he must be cheating but to not call out anyone else with the same splits is a bit off.

QUOTE "but any suspicions we had remained between us, because what if we were wrong?"

That's adding to my point a pro can't call out one pros race splits and say CHEATER.
When a dozen other guys have the near exact same splits but they are NOT cheaters. You just said what I said if you say one looks suspicious then call them all out but you maybe wrong.

His past no one can defend maybe??? but he hasn't got caught in triathlon and TRAITHLON is letting him race so fight the system.

( side note) I don't like him or his past just objectivity about splits matching doping allegations. You should be questioning Will Clarke he posted it???

The point is this: we have rules on this forum about accusing athletes of doping without evidence. If you can’t follow the rules, then take that speech to Facebook or some other place.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Post deleted by windschatten [ In reply to ]
Last edited by: windschatten: May 29, 18 14:10
Re: Michael Weiss [windschatten] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In my role as moderator? No.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting take.

Will Clarke makes post with no evidence.
slow twitch poster on your form with no evidence says look this must be true, please discuss.
I say will clarkes statement is so stupid you could make that argument with all these splits of x athletes and admit I have no evidence, I am just making a point.

You say please no names when making a point even though I stated I don't think they are cheaters but by that pro's stupid logic everyone would be considered a doper???

I should have said ( this statement basically says)
so no names "anyone that can swim 26-28 then bike low 2 hr and then run 1:09-1:13 in will clarkes eyes is doping". WILL CLARKE NOT ME.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triathletetoth wrote:
Interesting take.

Will Clarke makes post with no evidence.
slow twitch poster on your form with no evidence says look this must be true, please discuss.
I say will clarkes statement is so stupid you could make that argument with all these splits of x athletes and admit I have no evidence, I am just making a point.

You say please no names when making a point even though I stated I don't think they are cheaters but by that pro's stupid logic everyone would be considered a doper???

I should have said ( this statement basically says)
so no names "anyone that can swim 26-28 then bike low 2 hr and then run 1:09-1:13 in will clarkes eyes is doping". WILL CLARKE NOT ME.

Sounds to me like you're a dog beater.
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What Will Clark did wasn't classy but these people my guess never worked in a corporate environment so they have no idea what can be said or be said in public, you simply don't lash out without evidence, its simple!
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triathletetoth wrote:
Interesting take.

Will Clarke makes post with no evidence.
slow twitch poster on your form with no evidence says look this must be true, please discuss.
I say will clarkes statement is so stupid you could make that argument with all these splits of x athletes and admit I have no evidence, I am just making a point.

You say please no names when making a point even though I stated I don't think they are cheaters but by that pro's stupid logic everyone would be considered a doper???

I should have said ( this statement basically says)
so no names "anyone that can swim 26-28 then bike low 2 hr and then run 1:09-1:13 in will clarkes eyes is doping". WILL CLARKE NOT ME.

maybe something was lost in the translation. that's not how i read what you wrote. nevertheless, it's certainly possible that i misread it.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Culley22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
this flew right over my head.

Please don't explain it to me. I don't have time for that.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triathletetoth wrote:
Interesting take.


Will Clarke makes post with no evidence.
slow twitch poster on your form with no evidence says look this must be true, please discuss.
I say will clarkes statement is so stupid you could make that argument with all these splits of x athletes and admit I have no evidence, I am just making a point.

You say please no names when making a point even though I stated I don't think they are cheaters but by that pro's stupid logic everyone would be considered a doper???

I should have said ( this statement basically says)
so no names "anyone that can swim 26-28 then bike low 2 hr and then run 1:09-1:13 in will clarkes eyes is doping". WILL CLARKE NOT ME.

Finally some common sense! Hoorah... We may all have our doubts but if we label every world record broken, remarkable or unsuspected performance then we will be doubting everything and everyone. Does anyone question the dominance of the Germans in Ironman at the moment? Based on the groundless claims should we have a post about them and what their doctors are prescribing;)?

People may have a gripe that Weiss has been done for doping in 2005 in a different sport and certainly a very different time. I imagine being a lot younger and maybe in an environment being cycling where it was rife (this was the Lance Armstrong, Fuentes blood doping period and Floyd Landis) and he may have felt compelled to dope to be competitive. I'm not here to make excuses for dopers but people make mistakes and provided they serve their penalty, you may not like them but they are under the same doping tests and guidelines as everyone else. Pull out your knives if he fails any time soon.

David Millar Scottish cyclist got done for doping around this period, served his time and came back a massive anti doping proponent and very vocal regarding it in the peloton and earned a lot of respect. As for Weiss having to apologise. Apologise to who? I am sure he harbours the guilt and regret and probably doesn't want to talk about especially as he is now competing in a different sport to a different audience 13 years after the fact.

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/462/the-fall-and-rise-of-david-millar


Now based on this logic that Weiss must be on drugs to run as fast then what is that Spanish athlete on (as we can only accuse Weiss and name other athletes)? Do they have the same doctor out of Germany? My point being where do we stop? I watch sport and celebrate amazing results in the hope everyone is clean and I suggest you all do the same until someone gets busted. I feel sorry for the rest of you and how much lack of enjoyment you must take out of the sport continually doubting every result...
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Shambolic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I doubt most unbelievable results because history has shown they usually are, well, unbelievable. I do still enjoy the sport though and get satisfaction in following it.

As for Weiss and who he owes an apology to? Oh, I don’t know, maybe his competitors that he cheated...but he’s sorry you say? Well then, that changes everything.

Every decade it’s the same argument of “this is a new era and doping doesn’t exist.” The same things were being said back in 2005 about the issues of 1999ish time frame. When are we going to learn from history?

And the doping tests and guidelines are meaningless. In the rare case that they do work, how much confidence do you really have in the management of the results? Ironman busting a star athlete is not likely. I really lost faith in the system with the recent ITU fiasco(s). I thought they were a legit organization but they are no better than the rest of them. Sweeping things under the rug with little to no explanation.

I do understand your point of view though. It is easier just to have faith and take the results for what they are. It does make the sport more enjoyable. However, I think this acceptance is one of the reasons change hasn’t happened. So I’ll continue to be cynical and question those unbelievable performances.


https://twitter.com/mungub
http://benmunguia.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Shambolic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm going to have to disagree with you that people that have been busted for doping in the past should be treated the same as those that haven't.

We want people to stop doping, right? Then we should definitely shame those that have been busted. There's not enough shame going on in the world today. Motivate people to do the right thing (or be extremely careful of what they put in their bodies) because if they don't there will be consequences. And not just here take a 2 year hiatus from racing and train your face off (or have a baby). They should be ostracized if we can't get a permanent ban from the governing bodies.

Strava I Instagram I Team Every Man Jack I PM me for 25% off discount code at everymanjack.com
Quote Reply
Re: Michael Weiss [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sean H wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree with you that people that have been busted for doping in the past should be treated the same as those that haven't.

We want people to stop doping, right? Then we should definitely shame those that have been busted. There's not enough shame going on in the world today. Motivate people to do the right thing (or be extremely careful of what they put in their bodies) because if they don't there will be consequences. And not just here take a 2 year hiatus from racing and train your face off (or have a baby). They should be ostracized if we can't get a permanent ban from the governing bodies.

Interesting thought process:

Dope until caught

Once caught, have baby (which would require time off anyway)

Return to racing in 2 years.


But really, we are over 100 posts into a thread talking about why people dope and what should be done and there isn't a single mentioned about the health risks these athletes take by engaging in doping.

___________________________________________
Ironman Lake Placid - 2019
North East Regional Long Course Championship - 2019
Bucks County Marathon - 2019
American Zofingen Ultra Distance Duathlon - 2020
Quote Reply

Prev Next