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: 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: 233
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: 10203
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: 233
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: 10203
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: 10860
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: 10860
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.

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

Postby spinoza » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:16 am

[quote="Conor Dary"]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.

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

Of course cheating is about breaking rules, and taking drugs is about, well, taking drugs. It's only cheating if there is a rule in place which is broken by the taking of drugs. I have no idea what rules apply to soldiers, or what the sanctions are for their breach. Few soldiers, I suspect, take drugs to achieve fame and fortune, but then none of that is relevant either.
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 10:24 am

spinoza wrote:

Of course cheating is about breaking rules, and taking drugs is about, well, taking drugs. It's only cheating if there is a rule in place which is broken by the taking of drugs. I have no idea what rules apply to soldiers, or what the sanctions are for their breach. Few soldiers, I suspect, take drugs to achieve fame and fortune, but then none of that is relevant either.


So safety has nothing to do with it. There is no rule, so who cares? If we had a rule then we would have to test. Horrors! That would cut into our military budget!

But then again they wouldn't even have to test. By the same method USADA is using in the Tour, they could just get a few soldiers to rat out the rest. But then they would have to kick those soldiers out and that wouldn't be so great. So yea, we don't want a rule there.

But USADA has to have a purpose, so let us have a rule about cyclists in a race in France.
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 10:55 am

Conor Dary wrote:
spinoza wrote:

Of course cheating is about breaking rules, and taking drugs is about, well, taking drugs. It's only cheating if there is a rule in place which is broken by the taking of drugs. I have no idea what rules apply to soldiers, or what the sanctions are for their breach. Few soldiers, I suspect, take drugs to achieve fame and fortune, but then none of that is relevant either.


So safety has nothing to do with it. There is no rule, so who cares? If we had a rule then we would have to test. Horrors! That would cut into our military budget!

But then again they wouldn't even have to test. By the same method USADA is using in the Tour, they could just get a few soldiers to rat out the rest. But then they would have to kick those soldiers out and that wouldn't be so great. So yea, we don't want a rule there.

But USADA has to have a purpose, so let us have a rule about cyclists in a race in France.


Let's not conflate topics. The question "did Bob break rule Y" is a different question from "is rule Y a good rule". A still different, although more difficult question, is "if rule Y is a bad rule, should Bob be given a pass for its breach?"

The last question is more difficult because more hinges on it. Does it make a difference if Bob profited from the breach exactly because Sally complied with the rule? Does it make a difference if Bob profited from the breach exactly because others, not themselves bound by the rule, believed Bob complied with the rule, and acted in accordance with that belief?

If you are saying the rule is a bad rule, I'd agree. But that isn't terribly relevant to the issues here.
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 11:38 am

spinoza wrote:
If you are saying the rule is a bad rule, I'd agree. But that isn't terribly relevant to the issues here.


The problem with the drug rules in professional sports is the complete haphazard way they are enforced. There is almost zero consistency. And that is my complaint with the whole Armstrong nonsense. Of course, for some people, I think, they find the arbitrariness of it all the best part.

What if every rider in the Tour was taking something 'illegally'? A scenario not completely impossible. Armstrong would have had 3 choices. Not ride, ride at a disadvantage, or try to ride at the same level as everyone else.

And for USADA it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They don't even need any positive tests. All they had to do is get one disgruntled rider to spill the beans and the rest, with the right threats or bribes, would fall into place. Tailored made for an outfit like USADA. And the main target is someone who passe anyways.
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 12:34 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
spinoza wrote:
If you are saying the rule is a bad rule, I'd agree. But that isn't terribly relevant to the issues here.


The problem with the drug rules in professional sports is the complete haphazard way they are enforced. There is almost zero consistency. And that is my complaint with the whole Armstrong nonsense. Of course, for some people, I think, they find the arbitrariness of it all the best part.

What if every rider in the Tour was taking something 'illegally'? A scenario not completely impossible. Armstrong would have had 3 choices. Not ride, ride at a disadvantage, or try to ride at the same level as everyone else.

And for USADA it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They don't even need any positive tests. All they had to do is get one disgruntled rider to spill the beans and the rest, with the right threats or bribes, would fall into place. Tailored made for an outfit like USADA. And the main target is someone who passe anyways.


I agree, more or less, with all of this. And if Armstrong had adopted the position in your second paragraph, my respect would be enormous. As it is, telling who is the more hypocritical is not the easy task. Don't know the motives of the USADA, but from the outside, as one who has a tad of experience about how such things work, they may have been put in a position where they had little choice.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:09 pm

Conor Dary wrote:And for USADA it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They don't even need any positive tests. All they had to do is get one disgruntled rider to spill the beans and the rest, with the right threats or bribes, would fall into place. Tailored made for an outfit like USADA. And the main target is someone who passe anyways.

Doesn't USADA have access to the testimony from all the Federal grand juries and FBI intrviews involving Armstrong's teammates? If that's the case, USADA doesn't even need disgruntled riders (eg. Landis), all they need is some riders who were afraid of lying to the G-men (eg. Andreu, Hincappie). Or they could use riders who have found PED religion (eg. Vughters, Museeuw).
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:59 pm

spinoza wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:What if every rider in the Tour was taking something 'illegally'? A scenario not completely impossible. Armstrong would have had 3 choices. Not ride, ride at a disadvantage, or try to ride at the same level as everyone else.


I agree, more or less, with all of this. And if Armstrong had adopted the position in your second paragraph, my respect would be enormous. As it is, telling who is the more hypocritical is not the easy task. Don't know the motives of the USADA, but from the outside, as one who has a tad of experience about how such things work, they may have been put in a position where they had little choice.

But it appears that Armstrong did adopt a position from his second paragraph - "ride at the same level as everyone else". By the way, CD already mentioned the pass that USADA gives to basketball players, but what about tennis players?

U.S. Open semifinalist Sara Errani says she will stop working with Luis Garcia del Moral, a former member of Lance Armstrong's medical staff who recently was handed a lifetime ban by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Del Moral also worked with a handful of tennis players.

Last month, the International Tennis Federation said it would recognize the USADA ban. In an interview after her quarterfinal win Wednesday, Errani said the ITF told her she could go to del Moral if she wanted, but she said she would stop.

"Now, his name is not a good name," she said.

Del Moral was one of three members on Armstrong's medical staff handed lifetime suspensions, accused by USADA of participating in a doping conspiracy on Armstrong's teams during part or all of the cyclist's seven Tour de France victories.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/83 ... ned-doctor

It's not as though tennis players are any more ethical than cyclists.
Serbian tennis player David Savic was found guilty of match-fixing and had his life ban confirmed by world sport's highest court on Thursday.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport said its panel found it was proven that Savic "made invitations to another tennis player to fix the outcome" of matches.

Savic will be "permanently ineligible to participate in any event organized or sanctioned by any tennis governing body," the court ruled.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/83 ... tch-fixing
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby mal » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:53 am

Cycling - pre this year. ( :? ) has a history based in drug taking. See Tom Simpson, see the way the race was originally set up.

It is clear form all data that Pantani was manipulating blood, but the only 'rule" was a top line of 50 on the hematocrit. So no one cared what he took, as long as the output was within the limits set by the organization. As long as the performance enhancement was inside normal levels. Of course normal levels decline over 3 weeks of the tour. So what's truly normal?

This is why I have trouble when people call it cheating. In today's environment, where drugs are specifically mentioned, and part of the rules, I see it. But retrospectively placing 2010 levels of scrutiny on past events is insane. It will only destroy the sport which is trying hard to meet today's expectations.

The USADA is on a witch hunt. They are trying to assert their relevance by reviewing and rewriting history. They should focus on today and the future. They are clearly setting up a divisive anti-drug conversation, instead of an inclusionary one.

This is about profile, and government funding, as previously pointed out.
mal
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Pego » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:57 am

mal wrote:Cycling - pre this year. ( :? ) has a history based in drug taking. See Tom Simpson, see the way the race was originally set up.

It is clear form all data that Pantani was manipulating blood, but the only 'rule" was a top line of 50 on the hematocrit. So no one cared what he took, as long as the output was within the limits set by the organization. As long as the performance enhancement was inside normal levels. Of course normal levels decline over 3 weeks of the tour. So what's truly normal?

This is why I have trouble when people call it cheating. In today's environment, where drugs are specifically mentioned, and part of the rules, I see it. But retrospectively placing 2010 levels of scrutiny on past events is insane. It will only destroy the sport which is trying hard to meet today's expectations.

The USADA is on a witch hunt. They are trying to assert their relevance by reviewing and rewriting history. They should focus on today and the future. They are clearly setting up a divisive anti-drug conversation, instead of an inclusionary one.

This is about profile, and government funding, as previously pointed out.


This is a voice of reason. The trouble is that too many people approach this subject with emotional reasoning and have trouble grasping of what may or may not represent "doping."
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:35 am

This is sure to rile up Conor Dary. The IOC is considering stripping away Lance Armstrong's 2000 bronze medal, despite the fact that it's beyond the statute of limitations, which is the excuse they used to give the East Germans a pass when their government-sponsored doping program was made public. Also, the Chicago Marathon is banning Armstrong from this year's race despite the fact that it's an open race which permots tens of thousands of participants who aren't subject to random drug testing.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-deci ... mpic-medal
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:29 am

I saw that about the Chicago Marathon. It was on the local news. So brave of Pinkowski. What a dick. I presume if Contador wanted to run he would be more than welcome. PInkowski makes a big announcement and there was no news that Armstrong even wanted to run Chicago.

And what else to expect from the IOC. The mafia finds an easy prey.
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 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:22 am

Did the Feds call Sheryl Crow on the carpet too?
Appearing on Katie Couric’s new daytime talk show, “Katie,” on Monday, Crow said, “He’s someone I really care about. … I know how hard he worked to win those titles and it was hard to watch. I felt bad for him, I felt bad for his family. … He’s a hero that we’ve watched for a long time and admired.

“I don’t see him … (but) knowing him, I have to imagine that the fact that he just said, ‘Look, take them (titles)…’ He’s probably tired of the whole fight.”

Crow did not discuss reports suggesting federal authorities questioned her over the Armstrong’s doping scandal.

http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/2012/0 ... armstrong/

It seems that she wouldn't have a problem denying the rumors if they weren't true. I guess under our current laws, the Feds can't make your wife squeal on you but girlfriends are fair game.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:53 am

This will be the one and only time I would post from this site but I agree with Erick Erickson.

    I don’t really have a dog in the fight. I’m never cared much for competitive cycling. But it really does seem horrendous and un-American to me that a quasi-government agency, mostly funded by the government, gets to pretend it is not a part of the government and throw out due process to harass an athlete after he’s largely left the sport and all prior investigations turned up in his favor.

    The USADA has gone back decades to reinvestigate doping allegations against Armstrong who is probably the most tested athlete in history. He’s surrendered blood and urine and everything else they’ve asked for over and over at frequently unannounced visits and somehow, if you believe the USADA, beaten them every time.

    Or . . . he wasn’t doping.

    There’s a lot of jealousy in the world. I don’t know whether Armstrong cheated or it is all jealousy. But he tested clean every time and the USADA has ignored its own statute of limitations to make an example of Armstrong.

    The horror stories of professional athletes and the abuse they suffer at the hands of anti-doping bureaucrats can boggle the mind. There’s something very much of the feel of a witch hunt to this. If Armstrong was doping, then by God take away his awards and give him a medal for being the smartest damn athlete on the planet.

    Exit point: if we’re going to go through this witch hunt every time an athlete gets too famous, maybe we should just let them dope and then, on the same competitive level, see who is best.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/08/2 ... armstrong/
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 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:15 am

Conor Dary wrote:But he tested clean every time and the USADA has ignored its own statute of limitations to make an example of Armstrong.


That's the rub. No thinking person believes that Armstrong didn't break the UCI's doping rules when he was winning Tours, but USADA had to break its own rules to get him.

It reminds me of how the Feds finally got former Louisiana Governor/rapscallion Edwin Edwards. The Feds knew Edwards was too smart to ever discuss anything illegal on the phone, so they hatched up another plan to get him. Edwards was in the process of building a new house, so the Feds put the squeeze on the contractor building it, by threatening to have the IRS look over his business with a magnifying glass if he didn't install hidden cameras and listening devices throughout the house while he was building it. Once that was done, all they had to do was watch and listen. When the Feds finally indicted him and it was revealed in the news how they got him, one of our local political pundits, who was no fan of Edwards said, "they may finally have got him, but they had to cheat to do it".
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:44 am

USADA laid out its case against Armstrong today and claims that it squeezed eleven of his former teammates into ratting him out. Here's the list:

    George Hincapie,
    Floyd Landis
    Tyler Hamilton
    Frankie Andreu
    Michael Barry
    Tom Danielson
    Levi Leipheimer
    Stephen Swart
    Christian Vande Velde
    Jonathan Vaughters
    David Zabriskie
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 54654.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:19 am

Conor Dary wrote:Exit point: if we’re going to go through this witch hunt every time an athlete gets too famous, maybe we should just let them dope and then, on the same competitive level, see who is best.[/list]

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/08/2 ... armstrong/

I can't even remember if I have posted on this thread before I am on the same page with Conor.
Athletes are permitted to seek the best nutrition, training regimen/equipment/locale.. why not the best chemist?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

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

Postby j-a-m » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:56 am

lonewolf wrote:why not the best chemist?

because then you force athletes to put their health at risk in order to remain competitive?
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

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

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:02 am

j-a-m wrote:
lonewolf wrote:why not the best chemist?

because then you force athletes to put their health at risk in order to remain competitive?


Yes, far better to do in backrooms with unqualified people....Such as these fine folks....

    The rising toll — 7 dead, 57 ill and thousands potentially exposed — has cast a harsh light on the loose regulations that legal experts say allowed a company to sell 17,676 vials of an unsafe drug to pain clinics in 23 states. Federal health officials said Friday that all patients injected with the steroid drug made by that company, the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass., which has a troubled history, needed to be tracked down immediately and informed of the danger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/sc ... wanted=all

Posted in other thread also, but what the hay...
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 preston » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:41 pm

Pego wrote:...The trouble is that too many people approach this subject with emotional reasoning and have trouble grasping of what may or may not represent "doping."

what may or may not represent doping? You've gone way into the weeds on this one. Stop thinking of it as doping and think of it as rule breaking. A rule that requires disqualification if/when caught. See how easy that is.

witch-hunt
n.
An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.


And, what's this ... about witch hunts? Some of us call it justice.

Rosie Ruiz was dq'd from NY and Boston on evidence that was less stringent than what USADA has on Armstrong but I've never read a defense of her on this board, especially by the people who want to prop up Armstrong now. I like(d) Armstrong, and I probably will continue to, but he cheated and he needs to serve the punishment for it.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:12 pm

preston wrote:Stop thinking of it as doping and think of it as rule breaking. A rule that requires disqualification if/when caught. See how easy that is.


1. Not necessarily. There are all sorts of "legal" supplements that might get contaminated.
2. When the rules become too prohibitive, they will be broken more readily than when they are more reasonable.
3. As Conor Dary mentioned recently and what I have been saying for years, remove "blood doping" from "dark alleys" and let the competent professionals manipulate it.

No, it is not easy at all.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests