Mathieu van der Poel Pleads Guilty to Assault After Altercation with Teenage Girls

 Sounds like everyone involved in this sucks.

 @EricArm your obsession with MVDP's underwear is disturbing.

 Bro, if some kids were knocking on my door all night in a hotel I would also probably flip shit. It would have been better for him to call the desk and ask for security though.

 @HB208: He probably did and they did'nt do much.

 @zeedre: Yeah probably. Its crazy that parents would let their kids do this... I mean, MVDP holds blame, but like, at a certain point I could see why he would flip shit... especially when they did it multiple times based on the article.

Even a regular person would probably not take kindly to the kids behavior... much less someone trying to get sleep before a huge race.

 @zeedre: He admitted he didn’t notify the staff, nor his team managers… just took the situation into his own hands, so to speak.

 @HB208: put your hands on my 13 yr old daughter. Ill be in jail right there with you with worse charges

 @pargolf8: Obviously I wouldn't hit a kid dude. I would also hope as a parent you have some control over your kids actions.

 @pargolf8: Well, then yeah, MVDP is an idiot then.

 True, although adults should also raise their kids and teach them enough is enough.

 @rubberbutter: Interesting. Hard given the benefit of the doubt - its hard to imagine not having taken that simple step.

 @zeedre: the race-day story in Italian press said he was staying with his girlfriend in a room on a totally different floor than the rest of the national team and staff. Maybe everyone sympathetic to MvDp should blame the Dutch national team for not handling their “wunderkind” and keeping him out of harm’s way before the race.

 @pargolf8: such hostility. Golf. LOL.

 @fruitsd79: midwest LOL

 Or even just a couple of small trail drops.

 And kids these days also live in their own little world.

 @tonit91: obviously. But that justifies an adult male using physical force against a 13 year old girl? Are you serious?

 I am with you on this. Totally disgusted by all those comments

 He was trying to live in a dream world. 13 year olds stopped him.

 @BiNARYBiKE: yes

 Hate to break it to you, but teenage girls tend to idolize influencers and other useless social media celebrities, not an athlete in an unknown sport (amongst teenage girls).

 Pretty dang sad what this comment section looks like. It’s clear we have a lot of adults who have issues communicating haha. If violence is an acceptable way to model communication to teenagers, we’re screwed.

 as a teen we know VERY well what we are doing. Time they learned accountability.

 @thesingletrackhunter: you can knowingly make bad crap decisions. Having less cognitive development almost ensures this happens! I don't disagree that they should learn some accountability, but physical assault is not the way to do that in a healthy way. You're saying it's good some kids got hurt by a grown man and that's okay. Take a hike!

 @thesingletrackhunter: For sure, kids love being little shits. Avoiding getting in trouble is/was part of the fun. The issue here is that MVDP, a 27 year old adult, reacted like a 13 year old himself, and possibly hurt some barely teenagers. Everyone has a breaking point, but any adult (especially a world class athlete who is in the spotlight) knows that you don't/shouldn't harm kids. As an adult, you are not only physically much stronger and bigger than kids, but are also mentally more developed with more life experience to better handle negative situations. Did they deserve to be taught a lesson? For sure. Was MVDP the person that should be teaching that lesson? Not a chance.

Those kids will one day grow up and realize how annoying their antics were, and that they wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. Respect for others is learned sooner or later for most.

 @letsgoridebikes18: to go from his comment to "You're saying it's good some kids got hurt by a grown man and that's okay". That's a gymnastic level leap right there.

 @DylanH93: how else do you reasonably interpret “time they learned some accountability”? It’s not a leap, it’s what happened!

 I'd rather be beaten than censored.

 You sound like a Christian conservative from the 80s. If you had a spirit animal, it would be Nancy Reagan.

 @Adamrideshisbike: I appreciate the compliment. They sure don't make em like they used to eh?

 @colebmx: Wasn't meant for you my man Was meant for the censorious chap above.

 So brave.

 @colebmx: Today Pinkbike seem to have taken the second option on some of this thread. Make of that what you will.

 @Sethsg ....looks like the mods piped up. I didn't think my 2 comments were anywhere near the bar that was just set by the mods. But unless I can't figure it out, I cannot find any of my posts in this comment section at all, whether above or below threshold (and they were both above, one by a a considerable amount).

I think some mods read through and just turned on the vacuum cleaner with a script involving "replies", which kind of sucks because I think some decent/positive comments got sucked up as well. To your point, either close the comments or explicitly state your stance (ie. PB does not condone violence/assault of any kind and related comments will be removed) and then actually moderate.

Anyway sucks if I've had stuff removed, and also sucks if I've lost my ability to find them (one isn't even in my feed now).

 @iammarkstewart: Is it the slippery slope of censorship or is it just that they didn't want one of the most upvoted comments of 2022 to be "f*cking kids"? That and the following comments are all that have been removed as far as I can tell, there are plenty of similar arguments still visible.
I hope it's the latter when you consider some of the comments around other contentious issues that have gone unchecked. I fully agree PB should disclose why comments are removed when they do so.

 @commental: ever since pinkbike was bought out they have been going down hill and fast. Not like biking downhill fast.

 @colebmx: Yeah I completely agree, the standard of reporting has plummeted. I'd love to know what people like RC and Vernon Felton think.
This story is one of many where I think they've been ambiguous with their reporting, there's a lot more information around what happened than they've reported, either through laziness or for the clicks.
They did exactly the same with the Pierron insta story last year.

 @commental: Definitely the latter. Plenty of comments in a similar tone are still here. We're coming to the end of year and all the summaries, including "top comments of the year", where they'd be called out on not including the "f*cking kids" one with its 1000 upvotes. I sincerely hope someone took a screenshot and will remind PB in due time. Tbf people will do it anyway, with or without a screenshot haha.

 @commental: You and @bananowy may be on the right track. I also know that this is a privately run website and it's their rules, and this potentially can happen to anyone. It's not really censorship in this context anyway. Not enough to drive me away from being here but certainly what little I thought could be meaningful in the context has gone by the wayside now when the moderator vacuum cleaner cuts such a wide swath.

When @mikelevy says they'll always keep the Comment section, points for doing that...but it's a double-edged sword I guess, and the mods get to swing it.

Edit PS: There have been other articles where they've indicated immediately that comments about "X, Y, or Z" won't be tolerated. That could/should have been the case here.

 @iammarkstewart: Agreed that whatever PB does, it can't be called "censorship". The term is so overused in internet rants about social media etc. It relates strictly to governments and not private entities. It might inconvenience us, but PB can exercise its freedom to have or not have comments just like any of us can ask guests out of our homes and businesses if we don't like something they said or did.

 @bananowy: if censorship is defined as "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." Why cant what pinkbike does be considered censorship?
Their suppressing of politically unacceptable views seems to fit the definition to a T.

 @colebmx: It would help if you cited your source for that definition, but typically censorship that you defining is meant to protect citizens, and the press, at a federal/constitutional/charter level so that they can't be prosecuted, disadvantaged or be subject to undue government influence or control. That doesn't really apply to private businesses. It's the reason you can, for example, get fired for saying you're ok with minors being assaulted but not go to jail for it. So PB can remove comments if they want, it's their version of asking an unwanted guest to leave the room. And when was the last time you heard of anyone filing a charter challenge against Pinkbike and the RCMP have shown up to conduct an investigation?

 @iammarkstewart: I understand what you are saying. I dont think the word only pertains to governmental actions. Here is a wikipedia link if interested.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

 @colebmx: I didn't wade through the whole entry, and while I can see points made in the introduction, I have issues when they need to warn that the article "contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed." (Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.)

Anyway, to my point, you can say PB censors people but I don't agree with that sentiment. They are managing their space as they see fit, the same as a bar can kick out a drunk person (or any person), or a movie theatre can have you leave for having your phone on during the movie. Being logged into PB is a personal choice, not a charter right. As always with free speech/censorship, you can often say what you want but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences. Like getting a comment removed from a privately hosted web server.

 @colebmx: Because PB is not a country and Wikipedia is not a source.

In spirit (and probably in letter too but there are 195 countries in the world with their different laws so...), anti-censorship measures are there to protect PB and you alike from the government, not you form PB.

That's the exact point - the government does not interfere in your private agreement with PB regarding moderation policies that was "signed" when you accepted the T/Cs and created an account. You are free to not accept those terms and stop using the platform. On the other hand PB is free to not offer you a platform at all. They are in no way obliged to help us share our views with the world. They can decide to stop having comment sections at all tomorrow (like many websites do) and that's just a business decision, not "censorship".

PB by definition can't "suppress" or "prohibit" anything. They don't have such authority over you. They can only manage and process data on their servers, including the comments. They have no means of "suppressing you". You might just have to use a different platform to express yourself. Preferably your own as then you don't risk conflict of interest with businesses like PB. If you run your own website about MVDPs adventures, no business or person will tell you what to say or not. Your government won't either as that would be actual censorship. Do keep in mind that if MVDP himself deems any of what you say on your own platform as libel/slander, he can take action and that's not censorship - that's holding you accountable for your words/actions. In other words, you are free to express yourself but not free from responsibility for encroaching on others' freedoms.

 @bananowy: No one thinks pinkbike was a country.
Also, you should look up the definition of source.
I cant find any source indicating censorship only applies to governmental actions.
No point in trying to converse when definitions of words are not accepted.

 @iammarkstewart: not agreeing with the sentiment is your way of saying you dont accept the definition of the term censorship.
That's your right I guess, but no point carrying on the conversation then.

 @colebmx: Dude, not everyone is always going to agree with you, that is how conversations work... You are also nitpicking instead of addressing the actual arguments made.

I'll indulge you though and for a minute pretend I accept what you say about censorship.

Even if I agreed with you that private businesses could theoretically "censor" you, that does not change the fact Pinkbike simply has no means to do that. It is physically impossible for Pinkbike to "suppress", "censor" or "prohibit" anything you want to say because they have zero power, authority or will for that matter to control what you do on other platforms, including your own.

Even if every single bike website in the world got rid of comment sections or conspired just against your comments, you can start your own and the others can do nothing about it. Only the state could try to stop you from doing that, which is why censorship is fundamentally a state thing.

I think I can actually think of only one example when a private business could come close to censorship. Trying to prevent employees from discussing internal matters like e.g. salaries between each other. The thing is, in most western countries there are regulations that say companies should not do that. The fact they still do is another story, but to me it comes more under mobbing than censorship.

But a media business "censoring" its audience, like PB its users? I'd like to see an example of that because right now I can't imagine how it could work.

Question: if another mtb website never had a comment section in the first place, is that censorship? Are they obliged to provide us a platform to express our views?

 @colebmx: What? If you think what you presented is THE definition of the term censorship I definitely disagree. I was indicating that I could see some of the spirit of the definition but that it doesn't apply in the PB context.

If the Wikipedia description of censorship is your bible then yeah, no point. But after simply saying I'm not accepting what you presented without addressing any of the points I made is you not engaging, and that's your right I guess. You are, as you accused @bananowy, not accepting any other definitions of words.

You "cant find any source indicating censorship only applies to governmental actions". What you can find are articles discussing why a website might or even should remove comments for liability reasons. Or, remove comment sections altogether, at their discretion. And no mention of some crack squad of lawyers showing up to drag said website to court over a Section 2 Charter infringement.

You can also find the actual Canadian Charter Section 2 explanation. From www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html , my key takeaway is under section 2(ii), Location of expression, where "Section 2(b) protection does not extend to all places. Private property, for example, will fall outside the protected sphere of section 2(b) absent state-imposed limits on expression, since state action is necessary to implicate the Charter." Which I take to mean that censorship (or lack of protection for freedom of expression), is exactly a "source indicating censorship only applies to governmental actions" despite what you said.

 @iammarkstewart: God... leftists love semantic, legalistic arguments.

Y'all are calling for censorship. Just own it!

 I have teenage daughters. I would be so ashamed if they told me they wanted to press charges for getting tossed by a roadie. I'd be more prone to believe them if they told me they got pistol whipped by a dolphin.

 @blowmyfuse: you’ve been commenting on roadies like 20 times in this comment section. Did you get molested by a roadie? Colin Strickland sleep with your wife? What’s going on man

 @angrynipples: testing out numerous punch lines on the toilet. It was a long poop.

 why are you being downvoted?

 People can do 8’ drops on pretty much no sleep, but pushing 300+ watts for hours on end at a world championship is gonna require good sleep believe it or not.

 @angrynipples: normal people yes. But mvdp cant hit a drop if his life depended on it

 @mtb-jon: I think he doesn't know about the video you're talking about.

 Great... pushing a teen is now considered a violent offense. Like most events, I'm pretty sure this is being blown completely out of proportion.

 Apart from when he wins, which is fairly often.

 He makes like 2 million euros a year riding a bike...

 @hexhamstu: An absolute idol winning against those 13yo girls.. What a joke of a man.

 @HB208: Lance made more money and never pled guilty to assault. But you’ll love this wanker until the day he’s caught doping.

 @rubberbutter: Really? Compared to LA MVDP is a f*cking Saint.
And for all the "child abuser" comments, those kids were in his face enough to get a shove and a get the f*ck outta here. There aren't many people who would have responded much differently in the middle of the night when one of the biggest events of their life was coming in the morning. Not sure if Europe is like America in this respect but he should sue their parents, if for no better reason than to bring their motivation to light.

 Is it insignificant if you can't get to sleep before a world championship race,in wich you put months or years of preparation?

 @nozes: The history of road racing is full of heroic stories of real men overcoming more than just a bad night’s sleep to win races.

 We always envy those who do what we can't.