Cycling forum - Doping "speculation"

AstraMonti

I will start this post by saying this has nothing to do with the cycling mods, they are just doing their job and I respect that.

Now to the real issue. It's borderline ridiculous that we can not even discuss the performance of the athletes without immediately being identified as doping speculation, especially when there are contradicting evidence. It's a bit tiring and kills conversations. Forums like Roadbikereview and and Cyclingnews have their own completely seperate subforums to discuss just that.
I am not asking that, I am just asking for a bit of freedom to discuss openly about the possibility of someone doping.

ThisRegard

You've also got the Dark Side forum over at Velonation

These, and no disrespect to boards, more relevant websites in the world of cycling can have full forums dedicated to the world of doping with many a discussion about one of the biggest teams in cycling at the moment based out of the UK.

TinyExplosions

Unfortunately, I suspect it's not quite as simple as "other forums have it, why don't we" -the realities are that the laws in this country are (to say the least) somewhat archaic, and Boards have been threatened in the past with legal action based on what posters say -hence the ban on talking about MCD iirc.

Because of this, and because the management don't want to have to spend the time and the money handling anything legal challenges, so there's a blanket ban, and nothing we can do about it ;(

See Here for some background from Tom Murphy (ceo/head type with boards) or also this open letter both of which, while specifically about the SOPA legislation, also explain the sometimes Draconian seeming rules on here.

Boards wants to stay up, and doesn't want to fend off legal challenges, so we can't talk about doping, unless someone's caught, like Lance

ThisRegard

There's also the issue from the Triathlon forum where an organiser disliked some of the comments about one of his events and tried to go all legal on all involved.

I know boards don't want to be the test case in all this, but I wonder how far they'd get based on someone stating something as their opinion on a website, as opposed to making a statement of alleged fact.

AstraMonti

TinyExplosions wrote: »

unless someone's caught, like Lance

That's exactly it though, we spend years putting our head in the sand while the whole world knew what was going on, the evidence was there, everything was there, yet, we were not allowed to talk about it.

TinyExplosions

AstraMonti wrote: »

That's exactly it though, we spend years putting our head in the sand while the whole world knew what was going on, the evidence was there, everything was there, yet, we were not allowed to talk about it.

That's the problem with libel and slander laws that we have in this country, not with Boards.

I'm fairly sure there have been cases in the past where the owners of a site have been made to be responsible for the comments contained within it over here, so you can't use the 'personal opinion' defence like you can in other countries.

Boards is a massive community, and to lose it over a stupid court case would be a very silly thing imo (and if large companies can get UPC etc to shut down access to The Pirate Bay, I don't think they'd have much trouble getting here closed)

Lumen

Private sub-forum?

edit: I suppose we could do our own on Google Groups or whatever.

Squidgy Black

According to a Boards employee on another thread in the Feedback forum, they get at least 5 legal threats a week. I'd imagine for fear of one of these threats actually going to court, they try their best to reduce the risk of this happening.

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

Private sub-forum?

edit: I suppose we could do our own on Google Groups or whatever.

Unfortunately even private sub-forums would be required to abide by the same general Boards rules

The issue here Astra, as Tiny pointed out, is that unsubstantiated doping allegations leave the site (and/or it's users) open to potential legal challenge. We know for example that Armstrong had his lawyers scouring online discussion forums for such allegations with the threat of legal action being brought against any suggestion he cheated before he was actually caught. The fact he was subsequently caught out does not matter. The fact is that at the time there was absolutely no proof of cheating. The site owners have made it clear that they do not wish to expose the site or its users to such legal challenge

In drafting the forum rules we were very conscious that if you give an inch certain posters will take a mile, and when it comes down to judgement calls it's better to err on the side of caution. Hence we decided to make it absolutely clear that even hinting that riders or teams were doping would result in sanctions - thereby reducing the amount of grey area to a minimum

I appreciate other sites do allow such discussion, but tbh that's their issue. The chances of actual legal challenge may well be small, but it's something where we are required to minimise the risk.

ednwireland

AstraMonti wrote: »

I will start this post by saying this has nothing to do with the cycling mods, they are just doing their job and I respect that.

Now to the real issue. It's borderline ridiculous that we can not even discuss the performance of the athletes without immediately being identified as doping speculation, especially when there are contradicting evidence. It's a bit tiring and kills conversations. Forums like Roadbikereview and and Cyclingnews have their own completely seperate subforums to discuss just that.
I am not asking that, I am just asking for a bit of freedom to discuss openly about the possibility of someone doping.

the problem is there is no discussion, you either have the definitly doped , definitely didnt dope or rarely i'll wait for it to come out in the wash (which is the attitude i had over LA since about 2002 there were enough rumours )
i've been on the cycling news clinic forum and theres very little discussion !

i just watch the racing now although i enjoy the classics much more than any of the three grands tours mind i'm booking my holidays fro the giro and tour next year so i guess i'm part of the problem

AstraMonti

I understand what you 're saying and I respect that, I enjoy Boards and I don't want any trouble to come to it.

On the other hand, I enjoy it less when I am restricted. We have reached a point now that we can't even discuss what F. did yesterday and how he compares to previous known cheats because we might be assuming he is on the juice as well. A very interesting conversation that would be full of historical data, evidence and full blown analysis has gone out of the window without even giving it a chance. And it was the same thing with Armstrong, we had to write what we were thinking with almost a poetic style just to not directly assume (but almost describe) that he was doped up to his eyeballs. Unfortunately doping is still alive in the professional cycling and you can't just filter out this information when you are commenting on a race or an athlete.

Darkglasses

If the posts yesterday are anything to go by, I wouldn't even want doping discussion on the forum. While I'm sure many of the regular users could discuss it sensibly, there was a huge amount of complete rubbish being posted. A major PITA.

Beasty

I am currently on holiday and did not catch yesterday's stage live, but I do know the mods that were online could not keep up with all the doping speculation that was taking place at one stage and reluctantly had to close the thread - as it was a lot of posters ended up getting banned and a lot more could easily have followed (and indeed many more would probably have been banned if the thread had been left open)

What would be the purpose of going through the analysis you suggest Astra? Basically it could only have resulted in further doping speculation and even more bans. The mods want to enjoy the race to, and really do not want to be dishing out bans but tbh the behaviour of some posters in recent days left no option

Anyway, as already alluded to, a change in approach on this particular topic would require the site owners to adopt a different stance across the site. The Admins can comment if they wish, but I for one don't see this happening

TinyExplosions

AstraMonti wrote: »

I understand what you 're saying and I respect that, I enjoy Boards and I don't want any trouble to come to it.

On the other hand, I enjoy it less when I am restricted. We have reached a point now that we can't even discuss what F. did yesterday and how he compares to previous known cheats because we might be assuming he is on the juice as well. A very interesting conversation that would be full of historical data, evidence and full blown analysis has gone out of the window without even giving it a chance. And it was the same thing with Armstrong, we had to write what we were thinking with almost a poetic style just to not directly assume (but almost describe) that he was doped up to his eyeballs. Unfortunately doping is still alive in the professional cycling and you can't just filter out this information when you are commenting on a race or an athlete.

I think the bigger issue is that while it would be good to see analysis of times, and discuss it and all that, all it takes is a few people to descend it into "so and so's on the sauce" and the thread quickly goes into chaos. Unfortunately, message boards seems to descend to the lowest common denominator, so while there might be 4 or 5 people willing and able to have a good discussion without going down the doping route, there are another 4 or 5 who just can't hold their tongue, which ups the work for the mods etc deleting posts and handing out bans (don't forget the mods are unpaid and do this out of sense of community, so giving them a load more to do on a Sunday is pretty unfair).

If everyone was adult about it, we'd be fine, but alas there's too many folks who just can't help themselves that ruin it for you and I (and the others)

Lumen

TinyExplosions wrote: »

If everyone was adult about it, we'd be fine, but alas there's too many folks who just can't help themselves that ruin it for you and I (and the others)

Exactly. It's entirely possible to discuss performances without making any specific accusations, but it requires delicacy.

You get a few posts strung together carefully walking the line and then some moron comes along with a "Just seen Cradley Friggins go up Alpe du Ventoux like Lance Riis did, no way he did that without taking all the drugs" one-liner and spoils it for everyone.

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

then some moron comes along with a "Just seen Cradley Friggins go up Alpe du Ventoux like Lance Riis did, no way he did that without taking all the drugs" one-liner and spoils it for everyone.

Maybe it can be natural selection -cross the doping line, and you get a 2 year ban from boards -then soon there'l only be the 5 of us left who can have a proper discussion!

Diarmuid

It's even worse than "doping specualtion". Posts are delete for merely expressing sceptisim, or even ironic statements. I quoted Lance Armstrongs famous line in a post yesterday. It was deleted.

The problem is not just that "doping speculation" is banned but the modding of anything even approaching healthy skepticism is heavy handed and ott.

ROK ON

You cannot have a meaningful discussion on pro cycling without discussing doping. Period.

Doping is in the sports DNA and has been since the very forst grand tour. There has never been a grand tour where at least a significant were doping to some degree.

If doping discussion is banned in the way that it is, then there is no point in allowing any discussion about pro cycling whatsoever.

That boards management think they will be sued is frankly ludicrous and without merit in reality. Why have not much larger forums where doping is discussed been sued. If they have been sued, why have these not been successful.

The mods job this time every year is nuts. Fair play to them for doing it. I cannot imagine that I would have the time energy or interest in modding during the Grand Tour season in particular. Unenviable.

CramCycle

Diarmuid wrote: »

The problem is not just that "doping speculation" is banned but the modding of anything even approaching healthy skepticism is heavy handed and ott.

I really wish it didn't have to be, but when we let it ride a small bit early in the week, it went off the rails in two pages and the amount of editing and warnings that had to be handed out were ridiculous.

I'd be happy to let things ride, just inside the line but when it is done, one person who knows no better (actually a lot of them do) jumps in with an accusation stated as fact and then the floodgates open, if we don't nip it in the bud it would be far worse.

Personally, I was enjoying the tour till I started moderating it, now all of the enjoyment is gone for me.

I really don't like having to be heavy handed (have handed it out bans to two people I know outside of boards in the last two days). Until someone can find a solution where people don't jump the gun and make statements as FACT without any proof, then I can't see a better way of doing it. I tried warning people by PM, there were multiple in-thread warnings, a sticky was put at the top of the forum, apparently this was not enough, so then the heavy handedness that everyone hates (mods included) starts.

Diarmuid

Fair enough but boards.ie should realise that this rule to cover an extremely unlikely event is wrecking the forum for users and mods then.

TinyExplosions

ROK ON wrote: »

That boards management think they will be sued is frankly ludicrous and without merit in reality. Why have not much larger forums where doping is discussed been sued. If they have been sued, why have these not been successful.

Don't forget a couple of important things:

1: The other forums that allow discussion are in different countries with different rules on libel, and possibly have a more relaxed attitude to the whole thing.
2: This isn't a rule that has been put in place purely for the Cycling board, it's a forum wide ban on any dodgy talk, and there have been legal communications and threats in the past (with MCD etc), so while it may be ludicrous to think that Lance or whomever would sue someone on 410, it's possible (and has happened) that legal action could be taken for similarly 'dodgy' things being said on a different area of the site, and with Irelands libel laws being fantasically awesome for the plaintiff, the chances are that Boards would lose, and out goes the baby with the bath water (see my previous comment with respect to the ISP's and The Pirate Bay)

Diarmuid wrote: »

Fair enough but boards.ie should realise that this rule to cover an extremely unlikely event is wrecking the forum for users and mods then.

As above, don't think it's all that unlikely in the grand scheme, and boards has taken the decision to have a strict policy on libel (or is it slander, I'm never sure!). It's not the cycling forum that has cased the issue, but we suffer along with everyone else.

oscarBravo

Diarmuid wrote: »

Fair enough but boards.ie should realise that this rule to cover an extremely unlikely event is wrecking the forum for users and mods then.

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.

AltAccount

Diarmuid wrote: »

Fair enough but boards.ie should realise that this rule to cover an extremely unlikely event is wrecking the forum for users and mods then.

Wrecking the forum? Seriously?

laraghrider

Lets be honest part of the problem is haters and trolls. The vast majority of us will post and discuss something in an adult manner. There are however those that for reasons best kept to themselves hate Team Sky. Much like Rovers fans hate Bohs. Anything Sky do good they will tear in and say it's obviously doping when it could be anything but. Also the trolls will throw up something ridiculous just to try and get the reaction. I think what boards mod's could do is distinguish between those and the reasonable posters allowing for some level of elasticity.

Beasty

Diarmuid wrote: »

Fair enough but boards.ie should realise that this rule to cover an extremely unlikely event is wrecking the forum for users and mods then.

There is plenty of debate on doping which has taken place in the forum over the years I have frequented it. What has never been permitted is speculation over riders who have never failed tests. Nothing has changed on that front. We had some very lengthy discussions on Lance Armstrong before he was confirmed as a cheater but we applied the same principles through those discussions.

I would add that the approach taken by Boards is no different from that taken by the mainstream media. They make sure their broadcasters/journalists do not make any unsubstantiated doping allegations against riders of teams. Does the fact that the TV commentators/journalists never state rider X must have been on drugs "wreck" the coverage?

Diarmuid

Beasty wrote: »

I would add that the approach taken by Boards is no different from that taken by the mainstream media. They make sure their broadcasters/journalists do not make any unsubstantiated doping allegations against riders of teams. Does the fact that the TV commentators/journalists never state rider X must have been on drugs "wreck" the coverage?

You keep talking about "making unsubstantiated doping allegations" but I've already stated that my posts have been deleted for even expressing skepticism.
Discussing pro cycling while preventing people from expressing skepticism is pointless

I should clarify that I was talking about wrecking the coverage of pro cycling. If I want to discuss pro cycling now, I use a different forum.

cunnifferous

Why can RTE and most other media outlets discuss the possibility of various riders doping but members on boards.ie can't? On nearly every news report yesterday when the Tour was being reported the first thing that was said 'Is Chris Froome doping' or something along those lines. Why can this large media outlets raise these questions, seemingly without fear of being prosecuted, while boards.ie, which in the grand scheme of things is relatively small fry, not?

Sorry if this has been explained before, but I'm just a bit puzzled.

Beasty

Diarmuid wrote: »

You keep talking about "making unsubstantiated doping allegations" but I've already stated that my posts have been deleted for even expressing skepticism.

I'm on holiday with limited access (certainly during the stages). I've had a look at a few of the posts that got posters banned and tbh they were pretty blatant. I can't say though that I've had a chance to review all the threads in detail, but there was a tendency of posters to head down the "scepticism" route which was drawing more posters in and causing more problems. As I've mentioned alrready, in such cases we will err on the side of caution

Beasty

cunnifferous wrote: »

Why can RTE and most other media outlets discuss the possibility of various riders doping but members on boards.ie can't? On nearly every news report yesterday when the Tour was being reported the first thing that was said 'Is Chris Froome doping' or something along those lines. Why can this large media outlets raise these questions, seemingly without fear of being prosecuted, while boards.ie, which in the grand scheme of things is relatively small fry, not?

Sorry if this has been explained before, but I'm just a bit puzzled.

Did they? Or did they report what someone else was suggesting? I've had a look at the RTE website and they are reporting Froome's repudiation of such claims, but are not asking the question "Did he dope?"

Of course that question in itself is not a problem, but half the possible answers are. Hence what's the point of asking the question on Boards if only one particular answer will avoid posters getting into trouble? You need to bear in mind this in an interactive site with the possibility of posters making instantaneous responses. Media outlets can completely control their content - we have to tidy up after the event.

cunnifferous

Beasty wrote: »

Did they? Or did they report what someone else was suggesting? I've had a look at the RTE website and they are reporting Froome's repudiation of such claims, but are not asking the question "Did he dope?"

Of course that question in itself is not a problem, but half the possible answers are. Hence what's the point of asking the question on Boards if only one particular answer will avoid posters getting into trouble? You need to bear in mind this in an interactive site with the possibility of posters making instantaneous responses. Media outlets can completely control their content - we have to tidy up after the event.

Put it this way then, why can nearly ever other news outlet report 'what someone else said' but no one else on boards can mention it. It seems rather bizarre that no one on boards can repeat what has been on every TV/radio channel and newspaper. Head in sand to the extreme.

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. I heard several people on the radio saying as much.

Beasty

cunnifferous wrote: »

Put it this way then, why can nearly ever other news outlet report 'what someone else said' but no one else on boards can mention it. It seems rather bizarre that no one on boards can repeat what has been on every TV/radio channel and newspaper. Head in sand to the extreme.

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. I heard several people on the radio saying as much.

It's already been covered in this thread - if you give any leeway it gets abused by some. Then we are into shades of grey as to exactly what someone meant with their own particular comments. Then we have posters drawn into saying something that's definitely the wrong side of the line.

Most media outlets are not discussion forums. As I've sad they have complete control over content. Have you ever heard a TV commentator suggest a rider is doping?

There's no problem with posters linking to articles - there is a problem when they start drawing their own conclusions and speculating over riders and/or teams. None of the mods here are legal experts and again as I've said a few times already we err on the side of caution and try and minimise the amount of grey area given the rules established by the site owners

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.