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 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

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:13 pm

preston wrote: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.

If every single runner in the Boston marathon had taken short cuts and ridden the subway, your Rosie Ruiz analogy might make some sense.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby tandfman » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:58 pm

Pego wrote: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.

But then a professional athlete must have not only a coach and a manager, but also a team of scientists checking and manipulating their blood. Is that the level playing that the athletes want? I doubt it.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:12 pm

It seems that some of the critics of athletes who have been caught in the past, particularly track are lenient about Armstrong. Why? Is it they have been bought into the hero worship of the mass media over him. If this were Ben Johnson, or Iban Mayo, or some other athlete noone really cared that much about in the US, would we have the same people fawning witch hunt?

Most athletes would never be able to have the resources to pull off the sophisticated regimen that Armstrong's group put together. So even those who cry that "everyone was doing it" are not fully accurate. Many were, but likely did not have the resources to take it to another level, not the ability to cover up by having friends in high places.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:46 pm

tandfman wrote:
Pego wrote: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.

But then a professional athlete must have not only a coach and a manager, but also a team of scientists checking and manipulating their blood. Is that the level playing that the athletes want? I doubt it.


A single competent hematologist familiar with demands of tour cycling/long distance running/skiing (pick the appropriate one) could service at least one team easily. It would be cheaper, probably more effective and certainly a lot safer than what they are doing now.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:47 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
Most athletes would never be able to have the resources to pull off the sophisticated regimen that Armstrong's group put together. So even those who cry that "everyone was doing it" are not fully accurate. Many were, but likely did not have the resources to take it to another level, not the ability to cover up by having friends in high places.


How do you know that?

In the end if you dislike Armstrong, this whole sordid tale is made for you. Our taxpayer dollars at work...
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 odelltrclan » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:53 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:
Most athletes would never be able to have the resources to pull off the sophisticated regimen that Armstrong's group put together. So even those who cry that "everyone was doing it" are not fully accurate. Many were, but likely did not have the resources to take it to another level, not the ability to cover up by having friends in high places.


How do you know that?

In the end if you dislike Armstrong, this whole sordid tale is made for you. Our taxpayer dollars at work...


How many athletes can afford to pay the likes of Ferrari upwards of 6 figures a year? Come on, open your eyes. Not to mention it is blatant cheating, but, we already know how you feel about that, at least with this "hero". Anyone who views those taking drugs as cheaters are labeled by you as having "prurient views". We have been down this road before.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:02 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:
Most athletes would never be able to have the resources to pull off the sophisticated regimen that Armstrong's group put together. So even those who cry that "everyone was doing it" are not fully accurate. Many were, but likely did not have the resources to take it to another level, not the ability to cover up by having friends in high places.


How do you know that?

In the end if you dislike Armstrong, this whole sordid tale is made for you. Our taxpayer dollars at work...


How many athletes can afford to pay the likes of Ferrari upwards of 6 figures a year? Come on, open your eyes. Not to mention it is blatant cheating, but, we already know how you feel about that, at least with this "hero". Anyone who views those taking drugs as cheaters are labeled by you as having "prurient views". We have been down this road before.


Has nothing to do about heroes, which should be obvious. I have explained my point umpteenth times in why I think it is just a political stunt, that keeps the holier-than-thous happy. Again if you dislike Armstrong this is for you. Our government at work.
Last edited by Conor Dary on Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:07 pm, 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 Pego » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:02 pm

odelltrclan wrote:How many athletes can afford to pay the likes of Ferrari upwards of 6 figures a year?


Those exorbitant fees are dictated by the fact that it is illegal. It would be quite affordable when legalized (look at my previous post).
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby preston » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:10 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote: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.

If every single runner in the Boston marathon had taken short cuts and ridden the subway, your Rosie Ruiz analogy might make some sense.

There is a difference between an analogy and a comparison.

    -No one defends Ruiz on this board, yet some of these same people defend Armstrong. Even though the evidence against Armstrong is "stronger"
    -Evidence against her ranged from "her legs don't look athletic enough" to "I never noticed her", but next to nothing from the people who were charged with officiating the event. Somewhat similar to Armstrong but people who WOULD have direct knowledge of Armstrong's use and who have little reason to betray him testified against him.
    -She wasn't DQ'd from NY until after questions arose after Boston. Armstrong didn't lose his titles until this "evidence" was enough to get charges filed - well after he had the yellow Jerseys in his study.

    a. 13 Armstrong's teammates testified that Armstrong used drugs
    b. There were actual tests, though not conducted by governing bodies, that showed that Armstrong used drugs

jazz, I realize that you have this belief -a belief that I find silly (not saying you're silly, just your belief)- that since "everyone was doing it" athletes were not gaining an "unfair advantage". If the rest of us (read: me) went down that rabbit hole we could never have organized sports because all rules would be in perpetual flux due to nihilists (read: you?) ability to litigate the "legitimacy" of every rule. Pego cites "supplements"; the next person says false starts; the next says artificial limbs should be allowed; the next says LJ/TJ fouls should just be measured, foul or not; the next says sponsors on singlet; the next says no rabbits...can we just make some rules and follow them (oh, that's right: USADA is following the rule in place). And, can the people who don't want to follow the rules just make another federation. Right now we have the IAAF...I just wish the rest of you can create your track "WBC" equivalent and go have your own series, circuits, championships, et. al.

And, blood doping in a back alley is EXACTLY where it should be. I'm not naive enough to believe that cheating will ever stop; however, I'm just mean enough to believe that the asshole who tries to cheat, and dies or is permanently disfigured, got what they deserve. **** 'em!
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:11 pm

Pego wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:How many athletes can afford to pay the likes of Ferrari upwards of 6 figures a year?


Those exorbitant fees are dictated by the fact that it is illegal. It would be quite affordable when legalized (look at my previous post).


Not buying that. Maybe a little. What is the going hourly rate of this type of professional? $300, $400 per hour? How much time to run all the data, store blood, run diagnostics, etc., race after race, and all through training. Then, who can find the best doctor. Suddenly, the best doctor commands the highest fees. Exclusive contracts, etc. The fees will still pile up.

If you can reach the mountain top, then you are lucky enough to afford it, if not, too bad so sad.
The end result will probably be worse than now, and perhaps more of the poor athletes taking risks by not having a doctor helping out, monitoring and then hurting themselves.

If the likes of Hamilton can get bad blood from a professional, what can happen if someone tries it on their own because they want to cut corners to save money?
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby preston » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:14 pm

odelltrclan wrote:...If the likes of Hamilton can get bad blood from a professional, what can happen if someone tries it on their own because they want to cut corners to save money?

So obvious and so true.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby guru » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:34 pm

Zabriskie's affidavit. Powerful stuff.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Za ... idavit.pdf
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

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

Postby spinoza » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:10 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:If every single runner in the Boston marathon had taken short cuts and ridden the subway, your Rosie Ruiz analogy might make some sense.


If every single runner in the Boston marathon had ridden the subway, we could call it the great Boston subway race, but calling it the marathon, which implies it is some kind of foot race, would be a tad misleading. If you're objecting to preston's analogy because, unlike the Boston marathon, you're of the view that every single rider in the Tour de France cheats, then it's surely time to stop calling it a bicycle race.

In any event: while I doubt that everyone in fact cheats; assume it so. If your point is that then the term 'cheat' would simply not meaningfully apply, I would agree with you. The problem is that position, again assuming that everyone cheats, (and with roughly the same ability at cheating), is that it simply isn't Armstrong's position.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:49 pm

preston wrote:jazz, I realize that you have this belief -a belief that I find silly (not saying you're silly, just your belief)- that since "everyone was doing it" athletes were not gaining an "unfair advantage". If the rest of us (read: me) went down that rabbit hole we could never have organized sports because all rules would be in perpetual flux due to nihilists (read: you?) ability to litigate the "legitimacy" of every rule.

I don't feel sorry for Armstrong, and I do believe in drug testing but I felt compelled to point out the fallacy of your Rosie Ruiz analogy. I thought it was an absurd comparison. As for WADA/USADA, I have a problem with the arbitrary nature of who they decide the target. If they were more consistent and all-encompassing in their witchhunts, I would have a lot better feeling about them. For example, if they went after all those old East German athletes and other athletes from the 80's and then worked their way up to athletes from the 90's, 00's and 10's, I would say, "Bravo!".
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 8:10 pm

spinoza wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:If every single runner in the Boston marathon had taken short cuts and ridden the subway, your Rosie Ruiz analogy might make some sense.


If every single runner in the Boston marathon had ridden the subway, we could call it the great Boston subway race, but calling it the marathon, which implies it is some kind of foot race, would be a tad misleading. If you're objecting to preston's analogy because, unlike the Boston marathon, you're of the view that every single rider in the Tour de France cheats, then it's surely time to stop calling it a bicycle race.

I objected to Preston's analogy because Ruiz didn't run 26 miles like all the other runners, while no one has ever accused Armstrong of not riding the same distance as everyone else. As for you implication that any sporting event in which there is cheating going on forfeits its right to bear the sport's name (eg. steroid-era baseball players never played baseball), I don't think that's sensible enough to warrant a response.

spinoza wrote:[In any event: while I doubt that everyone in fact cheats; assume it so. If your point is that then the term 'cheat' would simply not meaningfully apply, I would agree with you. The problem is that position, again assuming that everyone cheats, (and with roughly the same ability at cheating), is that it simply isn't Armstrong's position.

I've been a pretty hard-core cycling fan since before anyone had ever heard of Lance Armstrong outside of the sport of cycling. I've even been to the Tour de France on a couple of occasions. I always knew that there was doping going on but up until recently I assumed that at the very least, a significant minority of the pro peleton was clean. However, recent revelations and mea culpas have led me to believe that it is very likely that there have been years in which every single cyclist that started the Tour de France was doped, especially during the years before any test had been developed for EPO. If you look at how the average speed of the race increased from the early 1990's to the mid 2000's, it's hard to imagine how riders could have even made the day-to-day time limits without artificial help.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:48 pm

They doped and were never caught even though they were the most tested bunch and essentially all of the other teams of that era (pre-2006) were doping and got caught. One likely interpretation, besides being more focused on it, is that they were using at a lower level, which kept them competitive enough that all the other factors they they brought in

I think the most interesting things to read on this general topic are pieces by Jonathon Vaughters. In late August I posted the following"

This is a piece a lot of people should read.

Exclusive Interview: Vaughters Reveals More About His Doping and The New York Times Op-Ed
In an exclusive interview, Jonathan Vaughters talks about his reasons for admitting he doped as a pro cyclist

"Last Sunday, The New York Times published an op-ed by Garmin-Sharp manager Jonathan Vaughters in which he admitted to doping during his professional cycling career. In “How to Get Doping Out of Sports,” he described his journey from idealistic junior to guilt-ridden doper, and how the experience spurred him to try to help clean up the sport"

http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider ... -?page=0,6

I have been watching cycling for probably more years than Jazz. I rode down to the Olympic course in 1984 and rode it the day they closed it to traffic, and then I watched the race from the house of a member of my racing team (I raced from 1981 through 1985).

One of the things that happened to cycling when first LeMond and then Armstrong starting winning the Tour is that they substantially increased the level of resources in the sport. This probably affected the doping dynamics, as it because almost necessary to dope so that you could keep from being dropped in the stage races, and not even ones at the level of the Tour.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby mump boy » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:28 am

Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

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

Postby Pego » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:19 am

mump boy wrote:Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:


Nobody says that Armstrong did not dope. What some of us are saying is that he did precisely the same thing as the majority/perhaps all of his teammates and competitors. Singling out one individual is what irks me. Read Zabriskie's testimony that guru posted. Does Armstrong sound any different than anybody else?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:06 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I don't feel sorry for Armstrong, and I do believe in drug testing but I felt compelled to point out the fallacy of your Rosie Ruiz analogy. I thought it was an absurd comparison. As for WADA/USADA, I have a problem with the arbitrary nature of who they decide the target. If they were more consistent and all-encompassing in their witchhunts, I would have a lot better feeling about them. For example, if they went after all those old East German athletes and other athletes from the 80's and then worked their way up to athletes from the 90's, 00's and 10's, I would say, "Bravo!".

jazz, what is ....... is that you don't realize that even though Ruiz did NOT finish the race that she cheated and that even though Armstrong DID finish his races...that he cheated. You're doing this cherry-picking, Marlow-esque slicing ... that is beneath you. Cheating is cheating; rule breaking is rule breaking. Armstrong is defended despite the fact that the "evidence" suggests that he cheated and Ruiz is never defended and the "evidence" against her is considerably less.

You're misusing "witch hunt" again and you're conflating WADA with USADA. USADA went after Armstrong; USADA handled BALCO; these were NOT WADA functions. Also, if Germany and their ADA decided to go after the old East Germans than WADA would have no choice but to support them and ultimately handle any disputes with CAS. That's how it works; it's a process. It's not WADA it is Germany (though the IAAF, which has said that it won't, could - if memory serves) As for witch hunts...well it seems like you're only pissed because your ox got gored. It always makes more sense to go for the biggest fish when there are multiple accounts that the biggest fish was cheating; and there was none bigger than Armstrong. (even in t&f little attention is paid to athletes who rank below 50)
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:11 am

preston wrote:jazz, what is ....... is that you don't realize that even though Ruiz did NOT finish the race that she cheated and that even though Armstrong DID finish his races...that he cheated. You're doing this cherry-picking, Marlow-esque slicing ... that is beneath you. Cheating is cheating; rule breaking is rule breaking. Armstrong is defended despite the fact that the "evidence" suggests that he cheated and Ruiz is never defended and the "evidence" against her is considerably less.

As I said earlier, I'm not an Armstrong defender, I'm a USADA basher. Of course Armstrong cheated and in that respect, he and Ruiz have something in common. Here's an analogy. Supposed that a state trooper sat on the side of the road and watched as car after car rode by at 10 m.p.h. over the speed limit, but he didn't ticket a single one of them after hundreds of cars went by. Then a bright red Ferrari goes by at 10 m.p.h. over the speed limit and he immediately pulls it over and tickets the driver for speeding. That's the way I see the Armstrong/USADA situation. Is he guilty as charged? Of course, I knew that years ago. But were his fame and success motivating factors for USADA? You be the judge.
preston wrote: As for witch hunts...well it seems like you're only pissed because your ox got gored.

Wrong!
preston wrote: It always makes more sense to go for the biggest fish when there are multiple accounts that the biggest fish was cheating; and there was none bigger than Armstrong. (even in t&f little attention is paid to athletes who rank below 50)

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. I don't think the stars should be above the law, but I don't think that they should be below the law either.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:16 am

mump boy wrote:Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:


Are there people here who remain utterly clueless as to the actual "debate" going on?

:lol:
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

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

Postby preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:22 am

jazz, I see what you're saying and as usual, we agree more than we disagree; I just don't hold USADA beneath contempt like you do. In fact, other ADA's should be doing exactly what USADA is doing. I also think the light should shine brightest where the medals and honors have been won. I don't want to see B-standard athletes targeted while WR holders get missed because "everyone should be treated fairly". So of course I agree with you that Armstrong's fame was a motivating factor but to answer your analogy, if the Ferrari gets it...idealogues can call it class warfare :wink:
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:41 am

Some of the arguments posters on this have labeled against USADA have been shown to be invalid now that this report has come out. Some keep, repeatedly stating that (and have likely been influenced by the Armstrong propoganda machine) it is a witch hunt and why are they singling him out.

Well, many of the riders who have now given sworn testimony have also accepted punishment, forfeited results, etc. during the periods they admitted to taking drugs.

I find it incredulous that both Armstrong's legal team and UCI have been smugly calling out USADA over the last few weeks, postulating as though USADA had nothing on him. Right before the release of information the legal team released the same old tired, worn statements they had been issuing before. It seems they almost expected a dust devil instead of the hurricane that came. Collectively I can see them now crapping their pants and saying "oops".

My biggest problem with Armstrong is his treatment of other people. You read his book and he always talks about "team", but his actions always have been about him. Evidenced by when he refused to support Alberto Contador when they were on the same team in the 2009 TDF when Alberto was clearly superior. Anyone who has stood in the way of Armstrong has been vilified and defamed. In the mountain of evidence that exists Mr. "Team" continues to lie through his teeth and denigrate all who speak out against him, though there are so many now it just looks silly.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby mump boy » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:47 am

Pego wrote:
mump boy wrote:Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:


Nobody says that Armstrong did not dope. What some of us are saying is that he did precisely the same thing as the majority/perhaps all of his teammates and competitors. Singling out one individual is what irks me. Read Zabriskie's testimony that guru posted. Does Armstrong sound any different than anybody else?


The idea that because you can't catch everyone, you shouldn't catch anyone is beyond me

Of course you target the most high profile, for deterent and PR purposes if nothing else
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

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

Postby mump boy » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:49 am

kuha wrote:
mump boy wrote:Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:


Are there people here who remain utterly clueless as to the actual "debate" going on?

:lol:


you're crazy if you honestly think i'm going to be bothered to read this whole thread
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:43 am

Pego wrote:
mump boy wrote:Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:


Nobody says that Armstrong did not dope. What some of us are saying is that he did precisely the same thing as the majority/perhaps all of his teammates and competitors. Singling out one individual is what irks me. Read Zabriskie's testimony that guru posted. Does Armstrong sound any different than anybody else?


Exactly. Everyone was doping, testing was lax, in a race in FRANCE, and Armstrong and his gang was just smarter than the others. And yet you get the impression that Armstrong invaded some pristine sport like Little League and corrupted it.

But USADA needed a big profile athlete with enemies in a sport rife with drugs. That is how a government outfit gets funding.

Meanwhile as noted on another thread amateur runners are taking dangerous painkillers on a daily basis with no supervision in order to run a 5 hour marathon, and no one cares, especially USADA.

And then there are the dangerous steroids, see NYTimes article elseswhere, that actually are killing people, and USADA doesn't give a shit.
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 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:09 am

So USADA is supposed to take over the responsibilities that not even the FDA has been tasked with and monitor supplements? :lol: Can you say hissyfit? Unfortunately, it's typical.

USADA's job is to monitor American athletes regardless of where the competition takes place; whether it's in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower. Nearly every athlete who testified against Armstrong has been sanctioned in some way yet Armstrong was "singled out"? Talk about hero worship.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Pego » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:09 am

mump boy wrote:
Pego wrote:
mump boy wrote:Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:


Nobody says that Armstrong did not dope. What some of us are saying is that he did precisely the same thing as the majority/perhaps all of his teammates and competitors. Singling out one individual is what irks me. Read Zabriskie's testimony that guru posted. Does Armstrong sound any different than anybody else?


The idea that because you can't catch everyone, you shouldn't catch anyone is beyond me

Of course you target the most high profile, for deterent and PR purposes if nothing else


Catch? All those teammates confessed testifying against Armstrong, yet most of them were not disciplined. Deterrent? Like a capital punishment is a deterrent? Like jailing, even executing people for drug use or prostitution is a deterrent? That kind of deterrent? PR purpose? Why should a police organization need a PR? They are The Law.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:23 am

preston wrote: Talk about hero worship.


More nonsense from 7sided. What a surprise.
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 kuha » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:44 am

mump boy wrote:
kuha wrote:
mump boy wrote:Are people still defending Lance Armstrong ? :lol: :lol:


Are there people here who remain utterly clueless as to the actual "debate" going on?

:lol:


you're crazy if you honestly think i'm going to be bothered to read this whole thread



Oh, but of course. Talking through your hat is immensely more satisfying, I'm sure.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:44 am

preston wrote:USADA's job is to monitor American athletes regardless of where the competition takes place; whether it's in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower.

Let's be precise in our language. USADA's job is to monitor American athletes in MINOR sports regardless of where the competition takes place, and ignore athletes in the four major team sports.
preston wrote: Nearly every athlete who testified against Armstrong has been sanctioned in some way yet Armstrong was "singled out"?

Not true. At least half of the ones who testified against were never caught, and some of them competed in this year's Tour and other races despite admitting to the Feds a couple of years ago that they were dopers.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:39 am

Conor Dary wrote:
preston wrote: Talk about hero worship.


More nonsense from 7sided. What a surprise.

And, more hysterics from "Captain Raincoat with long range zoom lens"


jazz, I don't disagree that the pros get a pass and US Cycling falls into the realm of minor sports - even if the signature event is the very much professional TdF. And, I say "nearly" and you say "at least"...can we agree on "not everybody?" They could have been let off for cooperating but let me make this clear: I never said that it needed to be equal to be fair.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:06 am

preston wrote: And, I say "nearly" and you say "at least"...can we agree on "not everybody?" They could have been let off for cooperating but let me make this clear: I never said that it needed to be equal to be fair.

Saying that "nearly every" rider WAS sanctioned is a whole lot different than saying "at least half" WERE NOT sanctioned in my book. To be more precise, of the eleven riders that USADA listed as testifying against Armstrong, only two (18%) of them, Landis and Hamilton, were ever sanctioned during their cycling careers.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:29 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote: And, I say "nearly" and you say "at least"...can we agree on "not everybody?" They could have been let off for cooperating but let me make this clear: I never said that it needed to be equal to be fair.

Saying that "nearly every" rider WAS sanctioned is a whole lot different than saying "at least half" WERE NOT sanctioned in my book. To be more precise, of the eleven riders that USADA listed as testifying against Armstrong, only two (18%) of them, Landis and Hamilton, were ever sanctioned during their cycling careers.

jazz, jazz, jazz...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... g/1624551/
Eleven Armstrong teammates testified against him, including six active riders who were given six-month suspensions for their own doping: Hincapie, Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.


What do you know? I'm over 50% :wink:
Last edited by preston on Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby kuha » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:31 am

preston wrote:And, more hysterics from "Captain Raincoat with long range zoom lens"


You are a seriously sick person.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests