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 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: 16335
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: 5637
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: 5637
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: 5637
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

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:31 am

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


7Sided class A dickhead. Back to his old tricks. Another thread ruined. And you got a double life time ban...
Last edited by Conor Dary on Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:37 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 preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:34 am

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


You are a seriously sick person.

You're projecting...that's what I think of you and your kneejerk compulsive defense of your equally sick friend. You should block me.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:37 am

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


7Sided class A dickhead. Back to his old tricks. Another thread ruined.

Conor Dary being childish, as usual - and perverted, but he just can't help himself. Newsflash: you're welcome to block me.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:42 am

How did you come back from a double life ban? Standards have fallen...
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 11:48 am

Millions of US taxpayer $$$ went into propping up Armstrong and his teammates, it's only right that USADA address Armstrong and his 7 titles.
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 12:02 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: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.


Perhaps you have not read much of the current report yet, so a few items.

1. Armstrong had not been sanctioned during his competitive career [REAL one] did he?

2. Many of these athletes who have provided testimony are being retroactively sanctioned, just like Armstrong, and therefore are going to forfeit results, including wins, during those periods.

3. Isn't it conceivable that some of these athletes have chosen to retire rather than face 2 years now.

4. Much of these testimonies came through a Grand Jury investigation. As such, they were not subject to any sanctions until the Grand Jury was through with its investigation. None of that information is even supposed to be made public (criminal penalties can be applied to anyone who leaks the testimonies) though we know that information still gets out.

To say or suggest than Landis and Hamilton are the only ones that faced punishment is completely in error.

5. People who come clean are always given more leniency than those who perpetuate the lie and Lance Armstrong has had ample opportunity to come clean about all of this. Yet he has continuously chosen to demean or harm anyone who dare challenge anything about him or his legacy, up to and including Travis Tygart.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:04 pm

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


Why does gh let you get away with disgusting shit like that? You did before and now you are back at it.
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 12:19 pm

Conor Dary wrote:Why does gh let you get away with disgusting shit like that? You did before and now you are back at it.

The real question is why gh, or any of the moderators, allow you to try to brow-beat everyone on the board who doesn't agree with you. YOU should have been banned long ago and your partner in crime should have gone with you. Thread after thread is you throwing one snark-filled, sarcasm-laden, hissy-fit post after another - and then showing your wanker properties when you get push back. You also lose ALL credibility when you use words like "d***head" and then want to pretend like you're a model of rectitude. Tone down your posting style and leave me alone or just accept that we have differences and ignore me. But, to continue to requote comments that you've already made is YOU, Conor Dary, trying to destroy the thread. Your proxy warriors should take that advice as well.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:24 pm

jazz, another reason why I think people mischarecterize this as a witch hunt is that DIFFERENT jurisdictions have gone after Armstrong. I think USADA only went at him once...I think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/us ... ory_2.html
While the arguments about Armstrong will continue among sports fans — and there is still a question of whether USADA or the UCI has the ultimate authority to take away his Tour titles — the new report puts a cap on a long round of official investigations. Armstrong was cleared of criminal charges in February after a federal grand jury probe that lasted about two years.

USADA sought evidence from federal investigators, but in its report, the agency said none was ever turned over to its offices, based in Colorado Springs, Colo.
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 12:45 pm

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


You are a seriously sick person.

You're projecting...that's what I think of you and your kneejerk compulsive defense of your equally sick friend. You should block me.


No projection. Not even a little. You are a very sick individual.
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 1:15 pm

kuha wrote:No projection. Not even a little. You are a very sick individual.

Actually, it is. A lot. Which would mean that you're a very sick individual. It's sad.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:32 pm

Why do we have to put up with 7sided's disgusting posts? gh may remember this.
"I found the "lifetime ban" button readily enough; I'm still looking for the one that says "next life also."

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44226&start=90
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 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:34 pm

preston wrote:What do you know? I'm over 50% :wink:

I stand corrected, you were right. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language. Only two of the cyclists have ever recieved MEANINFGUL sanctions during their careers. Five of them are retired and the four active cyclists will serve a six-month suspension during cycling's off-season. They won't miss any major race days in 2013. That's about as harsh as the three-month suspension that FINA handed down to Michael Phelps to be served during smimming's off-season for smoking weed. :wink:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby spinoza » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:52 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
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.[...].


[...] 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.

[...]


Methinks you misunderstood yourself. Your initial example was premised on "every single runner ... had ... ridden the subway.." (emphasis added) You're now attributing to me something premised on "..there is cheating going on." A marathon in which every single runner - in your language - takes the subway is surely not a marathon, but some other kind of contest. If there are many possible subway routes, and picking the optimal route requires skill, it may well be fair to think of it as a subway route choosing contest, or the like.

I actually thought the point you were intending to make was something like 'if everyone cheats, "cheating" no longer picks out a property which distinguishes some contestants from other contestants, and looses meaning'. The fancy term is the principle of non-vacuous contrast. That would be a fair point, but I gather it wasn't yours. As to the baseball example: if everyone took steroids, and success as a player was a mainly a function of how good their drug program was, then if it were a game of skill, the relevant skill is surely more to do with doping prowess than baseball prowess. Are they playing baseball? Of course. Is it, at its heart, a test of baseball skill? Perhaps not.

If it's true that were years where everyone in the Tour de France doped, then the principle of non-vacuous contrast could arguably apply, so long as every one had equal opportunity to dope, and equal resources, support, information, and the like. If not, and if doping significantly increases performance, which if everyone is in fact doing it would seem likely, then the extent to which the Tour is a contest of bicycle skill as opposed to a contest of doping skill, is, I suppose, a question without easy resolution.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:54 pm

odelltrclan wrote: Many of these athletes who have provided testimony are being retroactively sanctioned, just like Armstrong, and therefore are going to forfeit results, including wins, during those periods.

Besides Armstrong who has a brand name to protect, these retroactive sanctions mean nothing IMO. If they want to make it hurt, they should go after the money the earned. Besides, we still don't know if the UCI will even honor these UCI sanctions.
odelltrclan wrote:Isn't it conceivable that some of these athletes have chosen to retire rather than face 2 years now.

Hincapie is the only one who retired this year, but he announced that he was retiring back in the Spring, many months before this report came down, which isn't out of the ordinary for someone who will be 40 in June.
odelltrclan wrote:To say or suggest than Landis and Hamilton are the only ones that faced punishment is completely in error.

See my post above.
odelltrclan wrote:[People who come clean are always given more leniency than those who perpetuate the lie and Lance Armstrong has had ample opportunity to come clean about all of this. Yet he has continuously chosen to demean or harm anyone who dare challenge anything about him or his legacy, up to and including Travis Tygart.

Based on everything I've read, Armstrong is a world-class asshole but is that a valid reason to treat him differently than everyone else? Barry Bonds is also supposed to be a jerk and I thought what they did to him was wrong. Albert Belle is another jerk but I thought it was a travesty when the sportswriters denied him his 1995 MVP award because of it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests