Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:13 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
I think his point was that the peleton rationalization, that they were riding on a level playing since everybody was doping, isn't necessarily true. The difference in response doesn't have to be that great for it to matter in a 4000K bike race. For example if one rider's VO2 Max increases by 10% from taking EPO and another rider's VO2 Max increases by 11% from the same dosage, you're talking significant time gains over three weeks and 90 hours of riding.


Okay, so what?

I realize this is a sore subject for you, but no one is forcing to read this thread.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:46 pm

Marlow wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:But what is Hamilton's point? That drugs didn't help him?

Irrelevant. Did he dope? Case closed. Next case.


What is your point? The issue of the book is doping in cycling, not Lance Armstrong, not Tyler Hamilton, but the culture of the sport. Of course the drugs helped him. He has admitted that. The point, as Jazz mentioned, is the rationalization by cyclists and general public of the "so what" they were all doing it. So they created their own level playing field, when that is NOT true. Since different athletes respond differently to drugs the king of the doping era would not necessarily be king if they were all clean. Taking it a step further, people say, well, if they were all clean, Armstrong would be champion still, when there is a very good chance that is not true.

Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:07 pm

odelltrclan wrote:Taking it a step further, people say, well, if they were all clean, Armstrong would be champion still, when there is a very good chance that is not true.

Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.

But remember that according to Frankie Andreu's testimony, Armstrong was doping even in his pre-cancer years when he was just a Tour also ran. And I wouldn't make too much of him abandoning the Tour when he was young since Indurain did the same thing when he was young. Also, he returned from cancer 20 pounds lighter than before and that makes a big difference in the mountains. I doubt that the difference is so dramatic that it would turn a journeyman into a Grand Tour winner.

Just look at baseball, back in the 80's before steroids became prevalent, Barry Bonds was winning MVP's and Roger Clemens was winning Cy Young awards.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:35 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think one way to guage how clean the sport is is by comparing the cyclists times up the traditional climbs to prior years' times. Last year's climbs in the Tour were the slowest in over a decade.


I don't know for sure if this is true or not because I did not watch much of the tour this year but someone on the Cycling News message boards I believe mentioned that they stopped broadcasting power output because Wiggins and Froome were constantly hitting levels from days under suspicion.


Someone from a message board? Solid evidence there....


Evidence for what? I was just making a comment that someone had concerning the TV stopping mid race in showing wattage generated by the riders. Those people were just curious. This is not meant to be evidence of anything. Someone is searching for something to be touchy about!
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:18 pm

odelltrclan wrote:

Evidence for what? I was just making a comment that someone had concerning the TV stopping mid race in showing wattage generated by the riders. Those people were just curious. This is not meant to be evidence of anything. Someone is searching for something to be touchy about!


Nothing touchy, but who really cares about gossip from another message board. It is just a lot of hot air.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:21 pm

odelltrclan wrote:

Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.


How do we know LeMond was clean? Because he said so?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:33 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:

Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.


How do we know LeMond was clean? Because he said so?

Good point. What I find amusing is these sanctimonious baseball writers who have pledged to keep all steroid users out of the Hall of Fame, but chances are that some steroid users are already in the Hall of Fame. I even remember one of these holier-than-thou hacks (Mike Lupica perhaps?) saying that he would be so glad when Alex Rodriguez surpassed Barry Bonds so that a clean baseball player would once again hold the record, only to have Rodriguez's name show up on the Mitchell Report a few months later.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:50 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Good point. What I find amusing is these sanctimonious baseball writers who have pledged to keep all steroid users out of the Hall of Fame, but chances are that some steroid users are already in the Hall of Fame. I even remember one of these holier-than-thou hacks (Mike Lupica perhaps?) saying that he would be so glad when Alex Rodriguez surpassed Barry Bonds so that a clean baseball player would once again hold the record, only to have Rodriguez's name show up on the Mitchell Report a few months later.


Yes, the sanctimonious baseball writer, sports equivalent of the College of Cardinals. I remember that nonsense about the 'clean' Rodriquez.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:52 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:

Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.


How do we know LeMond was clean? Because he said so?


Of course no one knows anything for sure about anyone, but LeMond showed talent above and beyond the norm, even for an elite cyclist as "normal" and his era predated the EPO era. I would be likely to believe him 100 times before believing Armstrong.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Marlow » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:58 pm

odelltrclan wrote:LeMond showed talent above and beyond the norm, even for an elite cyclist as "normal" and his era predated the EPO era. I would be likely to believe him 100 times before believing Armstrong.

Sadly, not I. Blood doping (Lasse Viren, mid-70s) anyone?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:22 pm

Marlow wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:LeMond showed talent above and beyond the norm, even for an elite cyclist as "normal" and his era predated the EPO era. I would be likely to believe him 100 times before believing Armstrong.

Sadly, not I. Blood doping (Lasse Viren, mid-70s) anyone?


Viren! The guy used reindeer milk.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:25 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:

Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.


How do we know LeMond was clean? Because he said so?


Of course no one knows anything for sure about anyone, but LeMond showed talent above and beyond the norm, even for an elite cyclist as "normal" and his era predated the EPO era. I would be likely to believe him 100 times before believing Armstrong.


What a surprise! 100 times! Why so little? Yes, LeMond GREAT ATHLETE! Makes me weepy! Unlike Armstrong who won a World title at 21. But then Armstrong has enemies and is evil! The antichrist!
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:29 pm

odelltrclan wrote:Of course no one knows anything for sure about anyone, but LeMond showed talent above and beyond the norm, even for an elite cyclist as "normal" and his era predated the EPO era. I would be likely to believe him 100 times before believing Armstrong.

Are you implying that Armstrong didn't show trememndous talent when he was young despite that fact that he became the youngest World Champion in history in 1993 at age 21? Seriously? :?

And while EPO might not have been in the peleton in the early 80's when LeMond came onto the scene, how do you know there weren't other drugs that were prevalent? There are a lot of sanctimonious old-time baseball players who remind me of LeMond. They never miss an opportunity to trash the players from the steroid era, despite the fact that their generation popped amphetamines like they were Tac-Tacs. At least players like Bob Gibson and Mike Schmidt are honest enough to admit that probably the only reason they didn't do steroids is because it wasn't prevalent in baseball locker rooms when they played.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:40 pm

Everyone should be reading the articles on/about/by Jonathon Vaughters, the head of Garmin..

One of the things that comes out is that the reason that Armstrong and the rest of the Postal/Discovery/Radio Shack teams did not test positive is that they doped at lower levels. He talks about why he hired guys like Danielson and not Jorge Jascke. One thing he said was that JJ was doping at much higher levels and the drop off clean would be substantial and that he would not readily take the reduced role that his reduced performance would entail while the ex-Postal/Discovery guys were at lower levels and not always limited by that level anyway (in the case of Danielson).

Morally it is essentially the same whether you do it big or small, but in terms of it implications for the delta in performance between doping and not, it is a big deal.

I would say that the recent sequence by JV amounts to the most interesting stuff I have read on doping.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:50 pm

I posted about the Vaughters revelations on the other thread. He spilled the beans on the cyclingnews.com message board posting with the username JV1973. Go to page 5 of this thread:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18436

Also, Johan Museeuw has confessed to his sins and is calling for the peleton to do a "collective mea culpa".

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/museeuw ... ast-riders
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:08 am

26mi235 wrote:
Morally it is essentially the same whether you do it big or small, but in terms of it implications for the delta in performance between doping and not, it is a big deal.


I don't want to attack you 26, but the thing that really makes the whole PED nonsensical is this morality tale. It almost turns it into a religion. Like the USADA on a Crusade..

Nike and Salazar can spend gobs of money on his Portland project in order to improve red blood cell count in a legal way, while some poor runner who does it in some medical, but far cheaper way, is a cheat.

If we looked at the danger, which I think gets overblown, and how to use these things safely we would be far better off.

Interesting about the low level PED use.
Last edited by Conor Dary on Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:36 am

I've merged the two Armstrong threads to keep life simple.
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Pego » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:24 am

Conor Dary wrote:If we looked at the danger, which I think gets overblown, and how to use these things safely we would be far better off.


Exactly. Legalize autotransfusion, put it in the hands of sport hematologists and the problem is solved.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby odelltrclan » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:54 am

Pego wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:If we looked at the danger, which I think gets overblown, and how to use these things safely we would be far better off.


Exactly. Legalize autotransfusion, put it in the hands of sport hematologists and the problem is solved.


It sounds good (autotransfusion) but how safe is it for people who don't have the proper medical care to carry out? Are lesser athletes who can't afford the doctors going to hurt themselves? Sounds too risky.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Dutra5 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:59 am

Conor Dary wrote:
26mi235 wrote:
Morally it is essentially the same whether you do it big or small, but in terms of it implications for the delta in performance between doping and not, it is a big deal.


I don't want to attack you 26, but the thing that really makes the whole PED nonsensical is this morality tale. It almost turns it into a religion. Like the USADA on a Crusade...


Absolutely agree. Lance should simply end the charade and come clean and everyone can simply move on.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:07 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
Pego wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:If we looked at the danger, which I think gets overblown, and how to use these things safely we would be far better off.


Exactly. Legalize autotransfusion, put it in the hands of sport hematologists and the problem is solved.


It sounds good (autotransfusion) but how safe is it for people who don't have the proper medical care to carry out? Are lesser athletes who can't afford the doctors going to hurt themselves? Sounds too risky.


Obviously a lot of people are doing it anyways, without any medical supervision, which I suspect is far more riskier.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby rsb2 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:13 pm

It sucks when pills and needles can count for more than things like talent and hard work. That doesn't sound like sport to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
rsb2
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:21 pm

rsb2 wrote:It sucks when pills and needles can count for more than things like talent and hard work. That doesn't sound like sport to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.


The morality thing again....And what is so fair about being able to use a 15,000 dollar high altitude chamber to accomplish the same thing.

    Matt Formato, the company's director of business development didn't want to reveal to The Sun the specifics of Hypoxico's deal with Phelps. Just that the company sent him the custom chamber last year and if a mere mortal wanted one like it, it would cost about $15,000.

    The chamber is supposed to work by creating a low-oxygen environment, which forces Phelps' system to work harder -- and essentially train -- even when sleeping.

    Formato said that Tiger Woods is another of their high-profile clients and that a number of endurance runners and boxers also have chambers.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-0 ... h-altitude

The point is, it is only sport. And besides, when you talk of pills and needles so dismissively, it is obvious you know little about football.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Pego » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:38 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:
Pego wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:If we looked at the danger, which I think gets overblown, and how to use these things safely we would be far better off.


Exactly. Legalize autotransfusion, put it in the hands of sport hematologists and the problem is solved.


It sounds good (autotransfusion) but how safe is it for people who don't have the proper medical care to carry out? Are lesser athletes who can't afford the doctors going to hurt themselves? Sounds too risky.


Obviously a lot of people are doing it anyways, without any medical supervision, which I suspect is far more riskier.


Both of you are absolutely correct. None of this stuff is safe just as riding a bike thousands of kilometers through the mountains at breathtaking speeds is not. High quality medical supervision is essential for any of this. If your team cannot afford such necessity, it does not belong there.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby rsb2 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:10 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
rsb2 wrote:It sucks when pills and needles can count for more than things like talent and hard work. That doesn't sound like sport to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.


The morality thing again....And what is so fair about being able to use a 15,000 dollar high altitude chamber to accomplish the same thing.

    Matt Formato, the company's director of business development didn't want to reveal to The Sun the specifics of Hypoxico's deal with Phelps. Just that the company sent him the custom chamber last year and if a mere mortal wanted one like it, it would cost about $15,000.

    The chamber is supposed to work by creating a low-oxygen environment, which forces Phelps' system to work harder -- and essentially train -- even when sleeping.

    Formato said that Tiger Woods is another of their high-profile clients and that a number of endurance runners and boxers also have chambers.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-0 ... h-altitude

The point is, it is only sport. And besides, when you talk of pills and needles so dismissively, it is obvious you know little about football.


Au contraire, I know a lot about football, which is why I really don't care much for it. It's just a lions and gladiators type of freak show to me, and the fact that millions of people like their entertainment that way has no effect on me, one way or the other.
And of course, not being a total idiot, I fully realize that other technological "advancements" muddy the waters, just as some athletes being born and living at 8,000 feet or so affords some sort of potential advantage also.
Do I have an easy answer to creating a level playing field? No? But whatever it is, it certainly isn't "f++k" morality, it's "only sport", so who cares what people are willing to do to super-charge their bodies, in order to win at all costs. At what age do you want to start teaching your children that ethic? And what other shortcuts to victory shall we throw into that valueless stew, for their consumption?
rsb2
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:06 pm

rsb2 wrote:

Do I have an easy answer to creating a level playing field? No? But whatever it is, it certainly isn't "f++k" morality, it's "only sport", so who cares what people are willing to do to super-charge their bodies, in order to win at all costs. At what age do you want to start teaching your children that ethic? And what other shortcuts to victory shall we throw into that valueless stew, for their consumption?


Sure it is morality. We are talking about 'cheating', the ultimately morality tale.

You have testing. People get caught and they get kicked out. Fine. It is these silly charades of going after one guy because he is a celebrity and made a few enemies.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby spinoza » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:31 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
rsb2 wrote:

Do I have an easy answer to creating a level playing field? No? But whatever it is, it certainly isn't "f++k" morality, it's "only sport", so who cares what people are willing to do to super-charge their bodies, in order to win at all costs. At what age do you want to start teaching your children that ethic? And what other shortcuts to victory shall we throw into that valueless stew, for their consumption?


Sure it is morality. We are talking about 'cheating', the ultimately morality tale.

You have testing. People get caught and they get kicked out. Fine. It is these silly charades of going after one guy because he is a celebrity and made a few enemies.


The directionality of entailment is always fun, which is what 'because' is all about. Here are two propositions:

-We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity

-The chap is a celebrity because he is a drug cheat

They really simplify to this proposition:

-We're going after one chap because he is a drug cheat
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Pego » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:01 am

spinoza wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
rsb2 wrote:

Do I have an easy answer to creating a level playing field? No? But whatever it is, it certainly isn't "f++k" morality, it's "only sport", so who cares what people are willing to do to super-charge their bodies, in order to win at all costs. At what age do you want to start teaching your children that ethic? And what other shortcuts to victory shall we throw into that valueless stew, for their consumption?


Sure it is morality. We are talking about 'cheating', the ultimately morality tale.

You have testing. People get caught and they get kicked out. Fine. It is these silly charades of going after one guy because he is a celebrity and made a few enemies.


The directionality of entailment is always fun, which is what 'because' is all about. Here are two propositions:

-We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity

-The chap is a celebrity because he is a drug cheat

They really simplify to this proposition:

-We're going after one chap because he is a drug cheat


You might want to change your handle. Spinoza is spinning in his grave.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:37 am

spinoza wrote:The directionality of entailment is always fun, which is what 'because' is all about. Here are two propositions:

-We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity

-The chap is a celebrity because he is a drug cheat

They really simplify to this proposition:

-We're going after one chap because he is a drug cheat

The problem with your logic is that it's based on a false proposition, namely the second one.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby spinoza » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:22 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
spinoza wrote:The directionality of entailment is always fun, which is what 'because' is all about. Here are two propositions:

-We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity

-The chap is a celebrity because he is a drug cheat

They really simplify to this proposition:

-We're going after one chap because he is a drug cheat

The problem with your logic is that it's based on a false proposition, namely the second one.


Do you think it false because you believe he wasn't a drug cheat, or because you believe he was, but that his athletic success, and therefore his celebrity, wasn't advanced by his cheating?
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:56 am

Pego wrote:

You might want to change your handle. Spinoza is spinning in his grave.


Very well put. Logic out the window.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:02 am

spinoza wrote:

Do you think it false because you believe he wasn't a drug cheat, or because you believe he was, but that his athletic success, and therefore his celebrity, wasn't advanced by his cheating?


By your silly logic, we can assume anyone who is a sports celebrity is a drug cheat. Since the claim is also made that testing doesn't mean anything. For example, why is LeMond getting a free ride?

But if you start with the hypothesis that you dislike Armstrong then anything is possible.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:11 am

spinoza wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
spinoza wrote:The directionality of entailment is always fun, which is what 'because' is all about. Here are two propositions:

-We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity

-The chap is a celebrity because he is a drug cheat

They really simplify to this proposition:

-We're going after one chap because he is a drug cheat

The problem with your logic is that it's based on a false proposition, namely the second one.


Do you think it false because you believe he wasn't a drug cheat, or because you believe he was, but that his athletic success, and therefore his celebrity, wasn't advanced by his cheating?

He was a celebrity because he won seven Tours in a row after beating cancer, not because he took PED's. PED's are just one of many contributing factors that made this possible, not the only factor. Here are another couple of examples of your logic:

We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity.

The chap is a celebrity because he received chemotherapy treatment.

Therefore, we're going after one chap because he received chemotherapy treatment.


Or

We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity.

The chap is a celebrity because he switched from triathlon to road cycling.

Therefore, we're going after one chap because he switched from triathlon to road cycling.


I could go on and on with examples of your illogic.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby spinoza » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:06 am

Conor Dary wrote:
spinoza wrote:

Do you think it false because you believe he wasn't a drug cheat, or because you believe he was, but that his athletic success, and therefore his celebrity, wasn't advanced by his cheating?


By your silly logic, we can assume anyone who is a sports celebrity is a drug cheat. Since the claim is also made that testing doesn't mean anything. For example, why is LeMond getting a free ride?

But if you start with the hypothesis that you dislike Armstrong then anything is possible.


Being a drug cheat isn't a sufficient condition for being a sports celebrity, and certainly isn't a necessary condition, which is what you're attributing to me, above. Silly logic indeed, but yours, not mine.

And I doubt any one is starting from the position of not liking Armstrong. On the contrary, I quite liked him- respect is the better word - up until recently. Of course I thought he, along with more or less every other cyclist at that level, was in less than full compliance with the doping rules. That's simply the environment in which he operated, and to be competitive, one had to operate within the facts of that environment.

As to drug testing: what the rules proscribe is the taking of drugs; the rules don't merely require the passing of tests. So the claim isn't that the tests don't mean anything; it's just that they don't mean everything. At their heart: The rules aren't about the passing of tests; they're about not taking drugs.

The only reason I've lost respect for Armstrong is his recent behavior. If he'd simply fessed up, and exlained the facts and the whys, he'd have gone up enormously in my opinion, and,as I said, I already had respect for him. I suspect that reaction would have been true for many.

What gets me is his complaint about the process. If we take his complaint that the arbitration process is 'unfair and unconstitutional' with a straight face, consider the consequences. Let's take that as the standard by which we judge judicial processes, and as assume that anything that offers less than, or equal to, that degree of protection to the accused, respondent, defendant, whatever, is unfair, and results in finding of fact which should be vacated. Let's also assume that a supportable finding of fact by any judicial body requires evidence more probative, less circumstantial, or whatever the complaint is, than the evidence apparently bearing against Armstrong here. Everyone should presumably be entitled to the same degree of fairness that Armstrong demands; certainly those facing imprisonment or execution. We could enact those standards into law. We could call it "The Empty The Jails Act, 2012"

If the complaint is that they are going after Armstrong, merely because he is a celebrity, do you really mean they are going after him because of the many people, suspected of being in breach of the rules, he is the most famous candidate target?
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby spinoza » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:14 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
spinoza wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
spinoza wrote:The directionality of entailment is always fun, which is what 'because' is all about. Here are two propositions:

-We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity

-The chap is a celebrity because he is a drug cheat

They really simplify to this proposition:

-We're going after one chap because he is a drug cheat

The problem with your logic is that it's based on a false proposition, namely the second one.


Do you think it false because you believe he wasn't a drug cheat, or because you believe he was, but that his athletic success, and therefore his celebrity, wasn't advanced by his cheating?

He was a celebrity because he won seven Tours in a row after beating cancer, not because he took PED's. PED's are just one of many contributing factors that made this possible, not the only factor. Here are another couple of examples of your logic:

We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity.

The chap is a celebrity because he received chemotherapy treatment.

Therefore, we're going after one chap because he received chemotherapy treatment.


Or

We're going after one chap because he is a celebrity.

The chap is a celebrity because he switched from triathlon to road cycling.

Therefore, we're going after one chap because he switched from triathlon to road cycling.


I could go on and on with examples of your illogic.



Do you think your arguments are unsound, or invalid? Obviously I didn't think the one I offered was anything other than rhetorical; it certainly wasn't intended as an actual syllogism. Trust me: I have a very good grasp of the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:16 am

spinoza wrote:

If the complaint is that they are going after Armstrong, merely because he is a celebrity, do you really mean they are going after him because of the many people, suspected of being in breach of the rules, he is the most famous candidate target?


It is a US government agency going after an American in a foreign race. And the guy is already retired! Why? Because they need funding from the House Appropriations Committee and they need a high profile athlete to show what a great job they are doing. And they found a dirtbag informer, Landis.

If celebrity bashing was not their motive why offer all these other riders immunity? From the way USADA has handled it one would think that Armstrong was some Michael Corleone, ordering hits left and right, and pushing heroin in the schools.

Why not go after the NBA players? Their guys are even Olympians, which is 'suppose' to be USADA's real purpose. The whole is ridiculous. But it keeps the righteous happy. Now the only thing missing is a weepy confession so the holier-than-thous will forgive him for taking drugs to do an insane three week endeavor.

Meanwhile in the US guys are being warned about the hazards of 4 hour erections, because they can't get it up normally and need a PED! It is a good thing sex is not in the Olympics.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby spinoza » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:42 am

Conor Dary wrote:
spinoza wrote:

If the complaint is that they are going after Armstrong, merely because he is a celebrity, do you really mean they are going after him because of the many people, suspected of being in breach of the rules, he is the most famous candidate target?


It is a US government agency going after an American in a foreign race. And the guy is already retired! Why? Because they need funding from the House Appropriations Committee and they need a high profile athlete to show what a great job they are doing. And they found a dirtbag informer, Landis.

Why not go after the NBA players? Their guys are even Olympians, which is 'suppose' to be USADA's real purpose. The whole is ridiculous. But it keeps the righteous happy. Now the only thing missing is a weepy confession so the holier-than-thous will forgive him for taking drugs to do an insane three week endeavor.

Meanwhile in the US guys are being warned about the hazards of 4 hour erections, because they can't get it up normally and need a PED! It is a good thing sex is not in the Olympics.



The foreign race bit isn't relevant to anything. But the 'high profile' bit is. I don't know what the USDA's motives in full are. Prosecutors the world over make decisions as to whom they I'll go after, in part, for all sorts of motives, including the publicity, how it will affect their budget, whether a prospective girl friend will think they are cool/studly whatever. That is the way of the world. Is it a good thing? Not really, but it's simply a consequence of human nature, and the systems in which they function. If they are at all capable though, they pick targets, at first instance, on the basis of substantial probability of conviction. Else, when they loose, their budgets are chopped, their perspective girlfriends think they are dorks, etc.

Should they go after the NBA players? If they had the evidence, or if they could, within the constraints of their current budgets, perhaps they would. I suspect that is, what fans of logic would call a counter-factual conditional.

But, all other things being equal, does being a celebrity make you a more tempting target? Sure, but in the real world, if the celebrity is rich, only if the evidence is compelling. It is also the way of the world that 'likelihood of conviction' varies inversely with 'wealth of the defendant'
Last edited by spinoza on Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:52 am

spinoza wrote:
The foreign race bit isn't relevant to anything. But the 'high profile' bit is. I don't know what the USDA's motives in full are. Prosecutors the world over make decisions as to whom they I'll go after, in part, for all sorts of motives, including the publicity, how it will affect their budget, whether a prospective girl friend will think they are cool/studly


How is it being foreign not relevant. What if the Tour and cycling in general had no testing at all? (Which was the case for a long time.)

Look at Contador. The guy recently, actually, truly flunked a drug test. And now he is leading the Vuelta. Meanwhile Armstrong is persona non grata, on the testimony of riders, whom I presume, were equally guilty but are all having a jolly good time now, since the murderous Kingpin Armstrong is the one the Feds were really after.

USADA has one purpose. Get more funding from the US government!
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby spinoza » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:07 am

Conor Dary wrote:
spinoza wrote:
The foreign race bit isn't relevant to anything. But the 'high profile' bit is. I don't know what the USDA's motives in full are. Prosecutors the world over make decisions as to whom they I'll go after, in part, for all sorts of motives, including the publicity, how it will affect their budget, whether a prospective girl friend will think they are cool/studly


How is it being foreign not relevant. What if the Tour and cycling in general had no testing at all? (Which was the case for a long time.)

USADA has one purpose. Get more funding from the US government!


If it were irrelevant, in the sense that the finding in question, or the results that flow from them were ultra vires the USDA or the applicable bodies to act on, that would be a trivial argument that would have ended this matter long ago. I haven't read the enabling legislation, agreements, etc. but it's implausible to think there is some kind of unnoticed territorial jurisdiction error lurking about.

I agree that getting more funding is one purpose; I'm not quite cynical enough to think it is the only purpose.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:08 am

By the way, while the Feds think it is horrible that a cyclist will take PEDs in a race in France, how come it isn't cheating if soldiers are doing steroids. I am surprised the Taliban don't complain. It isn't fair! Our guys are clean!

    Several soldiers from the 4/23 Battalion, who confessed to using steroids, estimated that more than half the unit of some 700 soldiers had sampled steroids, according to investigative documents obtained by The Seattle Times under the federal Freedom of Information Act. One soldier had a scheme for continuing steroid use in Afghanistan through the receipt of mail-order packages that would disguise the drugs in lotion packets.

Meanwhile testing is not a big priority.

    Soldiers may be tested for steroids when a commander has probable cause to suspect abuse.

    But since 2008, only about 300 soldiers have been tested for steroids, according to Army statistics provided by Chiarelli. In contrast, the Army conducts random testing of more than 450,000 soldiers each year for use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other narcotics.

    Army officials say the steroid analysis is too expensive to be included in the random drug testing. The Army cost for a steroid urinalysis ranges from $240 to $365 per sample, which compares with a cost as low as $8 per sample for marijuana, according to Army statistics.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ds21m.html
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests