Lance Armstrong - How Can We Prevent Doping In Pro Sports?
DA74
competition testing" is the key. Maybe he regretted saying that when
the French tester showed up at his door after a ride and he "jumped in
the shower" for 20 minutes.
Anton Berlin
(as always) --- the reality that only a doper could beat his record of
7 consecutive dope-fueled wins.
Brad Anders
I'm interested in your view - when Lance is exposed as a doper, how do
you see that pro cycling will benefit? Do you think doping will stop?
Do you think that the riders who will take over his titles are
"clean"? Do you think that sponsors will flock to the sport? What
makes you so excited and anxious to see him caught?
Brad Anders
DA74
I can't speak for the esteemed Mr. Berlin, but I will interject that
maybe people are excited to see LA get caught for the same reasons
they were excited to see Bernie Madoff get caught. For perpetrating a
gigantic fraud on the unwitting masses.
But to speak for Mr. Berlin, if I may be so bold - the rest of your
Lance ball-gargling points are well taken.
Kurgan Gringioni
"DA74" <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f012cd64-7130-4c0d...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 22, 4:50 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > At that point - Lance had only one self serving hypocritical interest
> > (as always) --- the reality that only a doper could beat his record of
> > 7 consecutive dope-fueled wins.
>
> I'm interested in your view - when Lance is exposed as a doper, how do
> you see that pro cycling will benefit? Do you think doping will stop?
> Do you think that the riders who will take over his titles are
> "clean"? Do you think that sponsors will flock to the sport? What
> makes you so excited and anxious to see him caught?
>
> Brad Anders
:: I can't speak for the esteemed Mr. Berlin, but I will interject that
:: maybe people are excited to see LA get caught for the same reasons
:: they were excited to see Bernie Madoff get caught. For perpetrating a
:: gigantic fraud on the unwitting masses.
Dumbass -
Bad analogy.
Madoff ripped off a lot of people, for some it was their life savings. The
next investment those people make probably won't be a Ponzi scheme.
In contrast, when you bust a doper in cycling, the winner of the next big
race is also likely to be a doper and the masses aren't really ripped off as
long as they are entertained. That's all sports are. Entertainment.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
> "DA74" <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Dumbass,
You're forgetting all the little children that LANCE
cured of cancer. When they take away LANCE's
Tour titles, all those dear little children are going to
get cancer again. And it will all be LANCE's fault.
Won't somebody please think of the children?
Fredmaster Ben
Beloved Fred No. 1
> You're forgetting all the little children that LANCE
> cured of cancer. When they take away LANCE's
> Tour titles, all those dear little children are going to
> get cancer again. And it will all be LANCE's fault.
>
> Won't somebody please think of the children?
And the hobbits and dwarves now that LANCE has started to shrink.
mtb Dad
Assuming you're serious, I think the main thing that will happen is
the management of sports won't be able to look the other way in the
face of doping. Cycling, and many other sports did less than the bare
minimum to enforce their rules. If we're lucky, we will have
legislation that provides for mandatory third party monitoring and
enforcement and serious penalties for the managers, not just the
athletes. Then, in the long run, we can go back to the myth-making
and heros without the spectre of another 30 dead guys from the next
doping technology before sport and society react. No the sport won't
die, and no it won't thrive just because of enforcement. But it might
avoid the worst of the doping decided performances and harm to
athletes.
Brad Anders
> On Aug 22, 4:50 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 22, 9:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > At that point - Lance had only one self serving hypocritical interest
> > > (as always) --- the reality that only a doper could beat his record of
> > > 7 consecutive dope-fueled wins.
>
> > I'm interested in your view - when Lance is exposed as a doper, how do
> > you see that pro cycling will benefit? Do you think doping will stop?
> > Do you think that the riders who will take over his titles are
> > "clean"? Do you think that sponsors will flock to the sport? What
> > makes you so excited and anxious to see him caught?
>
> > Brad Anders
>
> Assuming you're serious, I think the main thing that will happen is
> the management of sports won't be able to look the other way in the
> face of doping.
IMO, sports managers haven't been looking the other way with regard to
doping, especially in cycling. There's been a rather massive effort to
develop new tests and methods (e.g. EPO urine and blood testing, blood
passport, exogenous testosterone testing, Ashenden's blood doping
test, etc.), and extensive in and out of competition testing (e.g. LA
tested OOC dozens of times since his return). Multiple agencies (e.g.
IOC, WADA) watch over the methods and protocols used, and draconian
penalties (e.g. lifetime bans) have been implemented and enforced.
High profile cases (e.g. BALCO) have resulted in jail sentences.
Yet, in spite of these efforts, doping appears to be commonplace. Why?
Because when it is done by reasonably smart people (and even some
fairly dumb ones), it's effective, fairly safe, and essentially
undetectable.
I don't see how nailing Lance for doping cases nearly a decade old is
going to change anything.
> Cycling, and many other sports did less than the bare
> minimum to enforce their rules.
I don't agree. Cycling has been one of the more aggressive sports in
terms of testing and penalties against dopers.
> If we're lucky, we will have
> legislation that provides for mandatory third party monitoring and
> enforcement and serious penalties for the managers, not just the
> athletes.
IMO, pro sports are for entertainment. Personally, I don't want the
drug and food agencies of the US, as well as local and federal law
enforcement agencies to be wasting time and money trying to police
drug use in sports. There are much bigger fish to fry.
> Then, in the long run, we can go back to the myth-making
> and heros without the spectre of another 30 dead guys from the next
> doping technology before sport and society react.
What about the mythical "30 dead guys"? A few Dutch riders <may> have
died from EPO use in the early '90's. With the level of hematocrit
monitoring that goes on today, it's extremely unlikely that anyone
could approach those levels. As for mythical performances, doping has
been in sport for as long as sport has been around. Many of those
performances were enhanced to begin with.
> No the sport won't
> die, and no it won't thrive just because of enforcement. But it might
> avoid the worst of the doping decided performances and harm to
> athletes.
Actually, I think that we're already operating in a system where the
"worst of the doping decided performances" have been eliminated, and
that the risk of harm to the athletes is minimal. Current doping tests
are effective at nabbing those who stray outside of safe limits that
can be accurately monitored.
Brad Anders
Beloved Fred No. 1
> I don't see how nailing Lance for doping cases nearly a decade old is
> going to change anything.
Apart from giving Lafferty a much needed orgasm.
Anton Berlin
I agree to let DA74 speak for me on this issue.
Mark J.
Mr. Anders, Mr. Anders, weren't you informed? The /voice of reason/ has
no place in this newsgroup!
Now back to our regular program of drug-investigation sensationalism.
</irony> and thanks for saying it so well.
Mark J.
Brad Anders
> On Aug 22, 4:50 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 22, 9:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > At that point - Lance had only one self serving hypocritical interest
> > > (as always) --- the reality that only a doper could beat his record of
> > > 7 consecutive dope-fueled wins.
>
> > I'm interested in your view - when Lance is exposed as a doper, how do
> > you see that pro cycling will benefit? Do you think doping will stop?
> > Do you think that the riders who will take over his titles are
> > "clean"? Do you think that sponsors will flock to the sport? What
> > makes you so excited and anxious to see him caught?
>
> > Brad Anders
>
> I can't speak for the esteemed Mr. Berlin, but I will interject that
> maybe people are excited to see LA get caught for the same reasons
> they were excited to see Bernie Madoff get caught. For perpetrating a
> gigantic fraud on the unwitting masses.
Except that Madoff was operating illegally, when his competitors
weren't. In Lance's case, everyone in the top 20 on GC at the TdF was
doing the same or worse than he was. The "fraud" in question wasn't
confined to Lance, it covers the whole sport. Not a fair analogy.
Brad Anders
Zeno
> > Brad Anders
>
> I can't speak for the esteemed Mr. Berlin, but I will interject that
> maybe people are excited to see LA get caught for the same reasons
> they were excited to see Bernie Madoff get caught. For perpetrating a
> gigantic fraud on the unwitting masses.
>
Major League Baseball has been a gigantic fraud perpetuated by both
the league and the Players Association for many years -- a conspiracy
if there ever was one. Relatively speaking, LA would be a little tiny
fraud. Everybody knew about the speed & the 'roids in baseball and did
absolutely nothing about it, while promoting wunderkinds like McGuire,
Bonds & Sosa as successors to the Babe. They constantly and publicly
denied that there was a drug problem when they knew better. They have
a long list of dopers who failed the test. If you think LA is a fraud,
what about McGuire bringing Maris's family to the park to watch him
break the home run record while he was juiced?
The Feds efforts against MLB have been a dog and pony show and a fig
leaf. In comparison, prosecuting Armstrong (or any cyclist for that
matter) is a joke. When was the last time a MLB or NFL locker room,
hotel or bus was locked down & searched for drugs? Cycling has been
doing serious testing and busting dopers since the 60s, while MLB and
the NFL were riding a wave of greenies & roids -- but Cycling has no
pull in Congress. Nobody should get a pass, including LA, but this is
selective prosecution of the worst kind and total hypocrisy on the
part of the Feds.
Zeno
> Cycling, and many other sports did less than the bare
> minimum to enforce their rules.
True for "many other sports," but not cycling.
Fred Flintstein
> If you think LA is a fraud,
> what about McGuire bringing Maris's family to the park to watch him
> break the home run record while he was juiced?
You know, that's a very appropriate analogy! If you read Bouton's book
where he discusses greenie use during his years on the Yankees it seems
unlikely that Maris was clean.
It's like how people get all teary eyed and nostalgic about the days
of yore when those the sport was all ethical and shit and dope wasn't
the problem it is today. Well, that's true but only because it wasn't
against the rules so the boatload of crap those guys were taking
was legal and not a problem.
Fred Flintstein
Anton Berlin
Jim Feeley
mbCdnRZ9b-5JjOnR...@giganews.com, "Fred Flintstein"
<bob.sc...@sbcremoveglobal.net> wrote:
Ya, no one on the 1919 Chicago White Sox was ever accused of doping. Those
were the days...
Jim
Zeno
BTW, contrary to what is often bandied about in RBR, obtaining and/or
possessing a controlled substance without a prescription, or obtaining
a prescription under false pretenses, is against the law and has been
for a long time. (I have heard people say, "taking steroids isn't
against the law." Well,obtaining them illegally is.) Anabolic steroids
have been a controlled substance under Federal Law since 1991.
Speed used in the sport wasn't against the rules of baseball until
very recently - neither, specifically is murder - but it was still
illegal. The Feds started cracking down on amphetamines in 1965, but
they may have been controlled in New York State before then, so I'm
not sure if Mickey and the boys were operating "legally" back in the
50s & early 60s. Since then, having a pocket full off Dex without a
prescription could and can land you in jail.
Fred Flintstein
> Speed used in the sport wasn't against the rules of baseball until
> very recently - neither, specifically is murder - but it was still
> illegal. The Feds started cracking down on amphetamines in 1965, but
> they may have been controlled in New York State before then, so I'm
> not sure if Mickey and the boys were operating "legally" back in the
> prescription could and can land you in jail.
Technically that's true. Getting a prescription was pretty trivial
though. I remember seeing someone going through a degree of withdrawal
from amphetamines back in the 80s because their specific brand of speed
had been discontinued and they had to switch to a different one. All
of this involved prescriptions and someone with the legal authority
to write them. I hesitate to use the word 'doctor'. But it was
perfectly legal.
Fred Flintstein
Zeno
wrote:
Bill Romanowski got in trouble when playing here in Colorado a while
ago for obtaining large quantities (over 500) of "diet pills,"
phentermine, to allegedly get jacked up for Bronco's games. He and his
wife got them from his doctor and others who had obtained
prescriptions. Although the drug was not banned yet by the NFL, he
faced several felony counts that could have led to 30 years behind
bars. Although he was eventually aquitted by a local jury
(Broncomania operating at its worst), his doctor and his other
suppliers were found guilty. The authorities took it all very
seriously.
Fred Flintstein
While I don't know the details, what you describe goes beyond getting
a prescription for yourself from a quack. Once you start passing things
around it's different. And if you sell them, it's way different.
Fred Flintstein
Zeno
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is not particularly complicated. If you get a presciption for a
controlled substance like amphetamines or steroids, and use it for
something other than it's stated purpose, that's illegal. Using it to
improve your performance as a professional athlete, even if it's not
banned in your sport and it's only you, takes it to another level. And
in pro sports, it's often not just "only you." Athletes often enable
each other and act as suppliers.
But of course they're not going to start prosecuting everybody who
does this (at least not in this country), which takes us back to my
original point about selective prosecution.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Why? Will any sports managers suffer greatly when
LANCE gets sent up the river? Why do you think any
penalties for managers will be forthcoming?
Let's be honest. The sport, or at least the anti-doping crusader
part of it, will pile all the sins of doping onto LANCE and
send him into the wilderness. Then we will be free of sin, and
dope. That's the way it works. Until we need another
scapegoat, at which point I'm sure one can be found.
Have you thought about the possibility that going back
to the myth-making and heroes is part of the problem?
Fredmaster Ben
DA74
Why would you assume Johan or Och for that matter will skate through
this? It's possible when all is said and done that both take a blow.
Don't forget Floyd's allegations that these directors / managers of
two teams (Postal, Phonak) were more than complicit and actually
conspired to either fund a doping program and help employees evade
taxes. I think the IRS might get a poke around once some of the dust
has settled.
> Let's be honest. The sport, or at least the anti-doping crusader
> part of it, will pile all the sins of doping onto LANCE and
> send him into the wilderness.
If true don't you think that might actually be fitting in some way? If
he pulled off the biggest fraud / conspiracy in the history of the
sport for almost a decade?
> Then we will be free of sin, and
> dope. That's the way it works. Until we need another
> scapegoat, at which point I'm sure one can be found.
This is a horseshit argument. I haven't read anyone who has stated
this. At worst, I've read that it will certainly rid the sport of a
"cancer" to quote Kimmage. Maybe you should consider the fact that
these guys aren't necessarily scapegoats, but rather that they are
guys that have allegedly committed criminal acts and are being held
accountable.
Most criminals never get caught let alone prosecuted. In white collar
crimes the clearance rate is 32% according to the FBI. Sorry to say
that Lance & Co. might just be one of the unlucky 3 out of 10 who made
conscious decisions to run afoul of the law and deal with the
consequences, as surely as they have heretofore reaped the benefits.
Brad Anders
> ...snipped
DA, let's say Lance is exposed. Are you saying that the guys who will
take his place in the record books are any less of a fraud than he is?
How so?
Brad Anders
DA74
Bradley,
First, I don't think someone will be able to take his place in the
record books. These guys pulled a fraud for the ages. To dominate so
thoroughly and completely for seven straight years in this day and age
is absolutely incredible and in my book, admirable.
That said, I think those that will try to occupy his place in the
record books will strive to be as big of frauds. This cycle will
continue as long as humans inhabit this earth. It is human nature.
Don't mistake my argument for a judgement call on what they did
though. My point is that they "allegedly" broke rules and laws, have
been exposed, and should face the consequences as mandated. Can't have
the upside benefits without the downside risk.
But I see what you're getting at. Anyone who thinks this will solve
anything is completely delusional. It won't. But that doesn't mean to
everyone should throw up their hands. What enforcement does is keep
the schemers in check until the next generation gruber is introduced.
Frederick the Great
<b0181124-f897-4a88...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
DA74 <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry to say
> that Lance & Co. might just be one of the unlucky 3 out of 10 who made
> conscious decisions to run afoul of the law and deal with the
> consequences, as surely as they have heretofore reaped the benefits.
You are not at all sorry; rather, gleeful.
Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
--
Old Fritz
Michael Press
<80c9ead0-a7ec-4dd6...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
DA74 <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But I see what you're getting at. Anyone who thinks this will solve
> anything is completely delusional. It won't. But that doesn't mean to
> everyone should throw up their hands. What enforcement does is keep
> the schemers in check until the next generation gruber is introduced.
So. You call for the occasional scapegoat, just as F. Ben says.
And your choice for scapegoat is LANCE.
--
Michael Press
Beloved Fred No. 1
> You are not at all sorry; rather, gleeful.
> Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
The end of the world is nigh (Nigh sounds like an Irish town).
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass 74,
Look at the "mtb Dad" post I was responding to. Look at all
the anti-LANCE crusaders. There are plenty of people
who think that bringing down LANCE is going to be
a major milestone in the War on Doping, and presumably
that after that, victory will be around the corner. Hey,
we started a War on Drugs, and now there aren't any
more drugs, so the War on Dopes is bound to succeed.
The point of a scapegoat isn't whether the goat is
innocent or not. It probably isn't - it doesn't take much
experience with goats to know that they've almost
certainly done *something* bad. The point is that
the tribe loads all of its sins onto the scapegoat and
sends it off into the wilderness, thereby making the
tribe feel cleansed and proud of itself. Until the next
year when they have to do it again.
As for Johan and Och, I suspect they will skate - they
don't have LANCE's biggest worry, the possibility of a
perjury charge. As I've previously tried to point out to
Laff@me, Och didn't even have anything to do with USPS;
he would have to get nailed by some corroboration of
a Floyd story and on a charge that had nothing to do
with the whole USPS-fraud angle. In any case, if they
do get nailed, I don't think it will lead to increased
penalties for management of riders who dope. At most
it might lead to managers being more sophisticated with
their accounting to avoid getting caught, and sponsors
demanding that managers have a higher level of clean
hands (that is, a higher level of plausible deniability).
If LANCE is a cancer, what healthy tissue is he growing on?
Kimmage seems to think there's some pure essence of
sportsmanship deep down in the sport and if only we got
rid of all the bad people, it would flower, and peace and
love would abound. He's in dreamland. What makes
people dope? It's not immorality. It's competitiveness.
Fredmaster Ben
William Fred
4913-a50d-e...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> If LANCE is a cancer, what healthy tissue is he growing on?
> Kimmage seems to think there's some pure essence of
> sportsmanship deep down in the sport and if only we got
> rid of all the bad people, it would flower, and peace and
> love would abound. He's in dreamland. What makes
> people dope? It's not immorality. It's competitiveness.
Excellent points. Perhaps, this time, he'll get it. However, it is like
explaining climate science to a labrador retriever. It sits there and
looks at you like it's totally getting it, but what it's really doing is
waiting for you to say "walk" or "treat" or drop a potato chip on the
floor. Except in this case you don't get the satisfaction of ever once
feeling like it is sitting there and "listening" to you, even if you
could see what it was doing when it was reading your post.
--
Bill Fred
DA74
> In article
> <b0181124-f897-4a88-9983-f86bc4319...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry to say
> > that Lance & Co. might just be one of the unlucky 3 out of 10 who made
> > conscious decisions to run afoul of the law and deal with the
> > consequences, as surely as they have heretofore reaped the benefits.
>
> You are not at all sorry; rather, gleeful.
> Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
>
> --
> Old Fritz
Of course I'm not sorry, Old Futz. Pull out that dusty Merriam-Webster
and look up "wry" - And it has nothing to do with vodka in case you're
getting excited.
DA74
> In article
> <80c9ead0-a7ec-4dd6-b3e3-f3e0cafaa...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > But I see what you're getting at. Anyone who thinks this will solve
> > anything is completely delusional. It won't. But that doesn't mean to
> > everyone should throw up their hands. What enforcement does is keep
> > the schemers in check until the next generation gruber is introduced.
>
> So. You call for the occasional scapegoat, just as F. Ben says.
> And your choice for scapegoat is LANCE.
>
> --
> Michael Press
I don't understand why he's being referred to as a scapegoat. If he
commited crimes and is being held accountable then it doesn't sound
like he's a scapegoat anymore than any other criminal who gets caught.
Please explain the logic.
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bedmaster Fren,
You're creating an either / or contingency to support your argument
with the Lance Witchhunters on one side and the Informed Realists on
the other. This is not how it works, son.
There is a federal investigation currently under way that is
(ostensibly) objectively looking into whether any laws were broken. If
you think the investigation team is made up of a bunch of mtbDads then
you might be a bit disappointed. They probably more resemble robots
than humans.
And your point on immorality vs competitiveness is a largely correct
analysis, although there is always overlap in the real world, so be a
bit more mindful of that fact when you paint with your monochromatic
brushes.
You're Welcome
DA74
> Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4550e027-f8bf-
> 4913-a50d-e59bc15c4...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Bill Fred,
Don't mistake my quote of that nutjob Kimmage for an endorsement of
his thoughts. It was a literary tool, a term I'd be inclined to use if
asked to describe you - sans the adjective, of course.
Frederick the Great
<496d538f-d7bf-461d...@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
DA74 <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 11:50 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b0181124-f897-4a88-9983-f86bc4319...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry to say
> > > that Lance & Co. might just be one of the unlucky 3 out of 10 who made
> > > conscious decisions to run afoul of the law and deal with the
> > > consequences, as surely as they have heretofore reaped the benefits.
> >
> > You are not at all sorry; rather, gleeful.
> > Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
>
> Of course I'm not sorry, Old Futz. Pull out that dusty Merriam-Webster
> and look up "wry" - And it has nothing to do with vodka in case you're
> getting excited.
wry:
1. Turned to one side; twisted; distorted.
2. Hence, deviating from the right direction; misdirected; out of place.
3. Wrested; perverted.
I will abide with single malts.
--
Old Fritz
Michael Press
<97f8364c-fb2c-41f3...@l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
DA74 <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 11:52 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <80c9ead0-a7ec-4dd6-b3e3-f3e0cafaa...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > But I see what you're getting at. Anyone who thinks this will solve
> > > anything is completely delusional. It won't. But that doesn't mean to
> > > everyone should throw up their hands. What enforcement does is keep
> > > the schemers in check until the next generation gruber is introduced.
> >
> > So. You call for the occasional scapegoat, just as F. Ben says.
> > And your choice for scapegoat is LANCE.
>
> I don't understand why he's being referred to as a scapegoat.
Then you should research scapegoat.
--
Michael Press
Mark
>
this case, pro cycling) would fuel conflict for desirable goods and
the scapegoat mechanism would temporarily defuse this conflict by
casting out one of the competitors. Who would benefit from expelling
LANCE from the tribe?
Fredmaster of Brainerd
No. Just as one should not confuse LANCE with
the drooling LANCE-fans, one should not confuse
Novitsky with the drooling Novitsky-fans. It's the latter
that I am referring to as the anti-LANCE crusaders.
Both Novitsky and the Novitsky-fans appear to think this
investigation is going to help clean up the sport, but
I expect that Novitsky has a more realistic idea about
how there will still be doping after LANCE than his
fans do.
> And your point on immorality vs competitiveness is a largely correct
> analysis, although there is always overlap in the real world, so be a
> bit more mindful of that fact when you paint with your monochromatic
> brushes.
>
> You're Welcome
The point is also that racing is a competition and that
even if that competition rewards immorality,
the fact that it's a competition makes it hard to make
doping go away.
(I'd call it unethical, not immoral, behavior - doping
is unethical, collecting donations to support your
fight for innocence when you aren't is immoral.)
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Fredburger
You typed it, now you say you didn't mean it and that absolves you.
You wouldn't accept that logic from LANCE; no one will accept it from
you either. You appear to have fewer testicles than LA.
RicodJour
> even if that competition rewards immorality,
> the fact that it's a competition makes it hard to make
> doping go away.
> (I'd call it unethical, not immoral, behavior - doping
> is unethical, collecting donations to support your
> fight for innocence when you aren't is immoral.)
Google Harold Connolly. He died recently. Multiple time World Record
holder in the hammer throw, Olympian, disabled (withered arm).
Admitted taking steroids and wanted them legalized. This was in the
late 50's and 60's. Maybe we should strike him from the record books?
In the rush to demonize someone or something current, which is the
current opiate of the masses (I LOVE YOU LINDSAY!), people lose sight
that doing so will require demonizing the people who did the same
thing(s) before they were specifically outlawed, and that the current/
recent heroes are the ones that will be the most likely to go down in
flames. This destroys our connection to the people of the past, our
history, and ultimately our future. You can't put a giant asterisk
next to our past. It's already there. Duh.
We are in a transition period, from a people that relied on trust, and
ammunition, because they did not have the ability to secure complete
knowledge. Complete knowledge is generally considered a good thing,
but when the complete knowledge is sought by imperfect people refusing
to acknowledge that their heroes are imperfect, it turns into a
charade. A sad charade.
We're able to peer into peoples bodies, and their effluent, on a
microscopic scale to determine and hopefully insure the Truth and
Purity of this imperfect person. With records stretching back
decades, and able to be examined with new tools at later dates...just
to insure that our wannabe hero didn't juice ahead of the pack or
visit with an Alien Doctor - bug-eyed or not.
There's a dangerous precedent, and I think it's a viral meme.
People's brains get infected and they go into polar-opposite mode to
clearly delineate the black and white, the good and the bad. There's
a huge "Opinions vary" population that is not vocal like the wingnuts
on either end. You can't shout down someone who doesn't speak up, and
there's no one speaking up with, "Fine, they all doped. Let's
exonerate/excommunicate/execute the lot of them, then can we get back
to the sport and dispense with this bullshit?"
R
DA74
wrote:
"At worst, I've read that it will certainly rid the sport of a
"cancer" to quote Kimmage"
That's what I typed fuckwit. As you may or may not be able to discern,
it had nothing to do with what I personally thought. Step up the
comprehension or shut the fuck up.
Fred Fredburger
When I said you have no testicles, that was a literary device. You
should look those up, you inane, malodorous, inbred, lobotomized moron.*
* That was another literary device, so I'm not planning on supporting or
standing behind it in any way.
RicodJour
Can I get a literary device with a Gruber Assist?
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> this case, pro cycling) would fuel conflict for desirable goods and
> the scapegoat mechanism would temporarily defuse this conflict by
> casting out one of the competitors. Who would benefit from expelling
> LANCE from the tribe?
This is also why societies or groups divide and exile
the out-group - you can see this behavior in many things,
like when hunter-gatherer tribes split, or church
congregations cast off splinter groups. A known
example is the FLDS, fundamentalist polygamist Mormons
in Northern Arizona/far southern Utah. The old men who
run the tribe kick young men out to reduce their competition
for women.
So it's pretty obvious to see who benefits and wishes
to see LANCE brought low. It's people who want to
date someone that looks like LANCE's mom.
Fredmaster Ben
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is quite a talent you have. You know, the one where you spew
random invective with the shaft of your cycling hero lodged firmly in
your throat.
But I have to say, you must possess a special brand of self loathing
to feel the need to piggyback on the wit of someone you consider to be
such a moron. Rock on, fucktard.
Fred Fredburger
Random invective? That's a funny thing for you to criticize.
How did you conclude that the fact I think YOU are a moron says anything
about some "cycling hero"? OH, I get it: you think saying stupid shit
is a literary device!
Fred Fredburger
Nice!
DA74
If you had taken my earlier tip and boned up on the reading
comprehension instead of the skeezy.com comprension then you would
have ascertained the fact that it was not at all a criticism, rather a
mere observation.
> How did you conclude that the fact I think YOU are a moron says anything
> about some "cycling hero"?
Quite by coincidence really. When the word "moron" came out of your
mouth your breath smelled uncannily like your mom's after servicing
me. By the way, you two should gargle after swallowing. It's the right
thing to do.
- InaneMalodorousInbredLobotomizedMoron74
Beloved Fred No. 1
Who would benefit from expelling> LANCE from the tribe?
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> So it's pretty obvious to see who benefits and wishes
> to see LANCE brought low. It's people who want to
> date someone that looks like LANCE's mom.
Lafferties motives are finally exposed (does that Polger chick look like
LANCE's mom ?).
William Fred
59456c...@q40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Bill Fred,
> Don't mistake my quote of that nutjob Kimmage for an endorsement of
> his thoughts. It was a literary tool, a term I'd be inclined to use if
> asked to describe you - sans the adjective, of course.
You know, I didn't read what you wrote (I don't think I'm alone in being
guilty of that of course), and reading your exchange with FF below
certainly doesn't make me want to go back and do so. However, if you say
you said whatever it was you said was a literary device, and you didn't
actually mean it, then good for you! I'm sure you pointed that out to
FoB, because he did read your post and from what he read I guess he
thought it sounded a lot like you meant what you wrote. But he's smarter
than me, although not smart enough to not read what you wrote in the
first place, because if he had been that smart neither you and he, nor
you and I, would be having these little exchanges. And I do mean little.
Really little.
Anyway, my point to FoB was not that you had or hadn't meant what you
wrote as a literary device, but that trying to explain anything to you
would be pointless, like this post here.
Now, I've spent about 20 lines on this, and you're about 20 or so entire
posts into the exchange, with several different people. I guess you
could (would?) argue that all those posts are a literary device, but how
do we determine who is really the tool here?
--
Bill Fred
Beloved Fred No. 1
> I guess you could (would?) argue that all those posts are a literary device, but how
> do we determine who is really the tool here?
You need tools to fix broken literary devices.
DA74
Snipped twenty lines of much protestation
> but how do we determine who is really the tool here?
I think you and your subconscious answered this long ago as evidenced
by the deferred maintenance on your physique and overall position in
life at this late stage of the game.
mtb Dad
> On Aug 23, 10:23 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Aug 22, 9:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > At that point - Lance had only one self serving hypocritical interest
> > > > (as always) --- the reality that only a doper could beat his record of
> > > > 7 consecutive dope-fueled wins.
>
> > > I'm interested in your view - when Lance is exposed as a doper, how do
> > > you see that pro cycling will benefit? Do you think doping will stop?
> > > Do you think that the riders who will take over his titles are
> > > "clean"? Do you think that sponsors will flock to the sport? What
> > > makes you so excited and anxious to see him caught?
>
> > > Brad Anders
>
> > Assuming you're serious, I think the main thing that will happen is
> > the management of sports won't be able to look the other way in the
> > face of doping.
>
> doping, especially in cycling. There's been a rather massive effort to
> develop new tests and methods (e.g. EPO urine and blood testing, blood
> passport, exogenous testosterone testing, Ashenden's blood doping
> test, etc.), and extensive in and out of competition testing (e.g. LA
> tested OOC dozens of times since his return). Multiple agencies (e.g.
> IOC, WADA) watch over the methods and protocols used, and draconian
> penalties (e.g. lifetime bans) have been implemented and enforced.
> High profile cases (e.g. BALCO) have resulted in jail sentences.
>
> Yet, in spite of these efforts, doping appears to be commonplace. Why?
> Because when it is done by reasonably smart people (and even some
> fairly dumb ones), it's effective, fairly safe, and essentially
> undetectable.
>
> I don't see how nailing Lance for doping cases nearly a decade old is
> going to change anything.
>
> > Cycling, and many other sports did less than the bare
> > minimum to enforce their rules.
>
> terms of testing and penalties against dopers.
>
> > If we're lucky, we will have
> > legislation that provides for mandatory third party monitoring and
> > enforcement and serious penalties for the managers, not just the
> > athletes.
>
> drug and food agencies of the US, as well as local and federal law
> enforcement agencies to be wasting time and money trying to police
> drug use in sports. There are much bigger fish to fry.
>
> > Then, in the long run, we can go back to the myth-making
> > and heros without the spectre of another 30 dead guys from the next
> > doping technology before sport and society react.
>
> died from EPO use in the early '90's. With the level of hematocrit
> monitoring that goes on today, it's extremely unlikely that anyone
> could approach those levels. As for mythical performances, doping has
> been in sport for as long as sport has been around. Many of those
> performances were enhanced to begin with.
>
> > No the sport won't
> > die, and no it won't thrive just because of enforcement. But it might
> > avoid the worst of the doping decided performances and harm to
> > athletes.
>
> "worst of the doping decided performances" have been eliminated, and
> that the risk of harm to the athletes is minimal. Current doping tests
> are effective at nabbing those who stray outside of safe limits that
> can be accurately monitored.
>
> Brad Anders- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re 'now it's safe'. Really? Manzano didn't think so. And what about
the next generation of doping? It's ok if they take a while to get
that right?
While it is true that now the UCI is making a significant effort with
the passport, up until very recently they were among the worst. This
deserves attention in the current examination of Armstrong's history.
For eg., until 2007 there were no chaperones for in-comp tests at UCI
events (Canada and US did this for national events for years; 'guess
we were outlaws here breaking UCI rules): 'no chaperone for an hour'
is a get out of jail free card. You can put detergent on your fingers
and piss away the EPO metabolytes, go dilute your blood (even a 20
minute shower is fine for that), or catheterize yourself with someone
else's urine. Every other sport realized that as early as the 1980's,
but cycling steadfastly avoided it.
Cycling had a 10 minute penalty in the tour in 1980's for steroids
when other sports had two years. They 'forgot' to add probenicid to
the banned list when the IOC did in 1988, and let Delgado off. The
UCI president took a holiday during the 98 Festina crisis. UCI was the
second last sport to sign onto the WADA code, just before the 2004
Olympics.
I think the current enquiry ought to include the conditions of the
regualtions and the sport leadership at the time. With that kind of
foot dragging, it's almost possible to sympathize with Armstrong. The
UCI effectively told him, 'if you don't dope you're going nowhere'.
There have been only two UCI presidents since the early 80's,
curiously, one handpicked by the other. Both are on record resisting
accepted anti-doping measures. Among other tidbits, Verbruggen said
out of competition testing violated right to work legislation, and
McQuaid opposed changes to the vampire tests other than in the
mornings, with notice. Both have been dragged to the current point by
WADA, the IOC and national government legislation. I think that
deserves consideration while we're talking about whatever Armstrong's
crimes may have been. They had a large role in setting the
enrironment for the sport, not him.
And if this is recognized as the major contributing factor I think it
is, then they can pay the price, or at least others in their shoes can
be warned they can't get away with it again.
mtb Dad
> On Aug 23, 10:23 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 4:50 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 22, 9:20 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > At that point - Lance had only one self serving hypocritical interest
> > > > (as always) --- the reality that only a doper could beat his record of
> > > > 7 consecutive dope-fueled wins.
>
> > > I'm interested in your view - when Lance is exposed as a doper, how do
> > > you see that pro cycling will benefit? Do you think doping will stop?
> > > Do you think that the riders who will take over his titles are
> > > "clean"? Do you think that sponsors will flock to the sport? What
> > > makes you so excited and anxious to see him caught?
>
> > > Brad Anders
>
> > Assuming you're serious, I think the main thing that will happen is
> > the management of sports won't be able to look the other way in the
> > minimum to enforce their rules. If we're lucky, we will have
> > legislation that provides for mandatory third party monitoring and
> > enforcement and serious penalties for the managers, not just the
> > and heros without the spectre of another 30 dead guys from the next
> > die, and no it won't thrive just because of enforcement. But it might
> > avoid the worst of the doping decided performances and harm to
> > athletes.
>
> LANCE gets sent up the river? Why do you think any
> penalties for managers will be forthcoming?
>
> part of it, will pile all the sins of doping onto LANCE and
> dope. That's the way it works. Until we need another
> scapegoat, at which point I'm sure one can be found.
>
> to the myth-making and heroes is part of the problem?
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't see any penalities coming for the managers, of the sport or
the teams, and I think there should be. See the above post on the
role of the UCI officials in perpetuating the problem. When people
are that obtuse, there should be penalties. Moreso if it was on
purpose.
Re myths, I do see that as part of the problem, and that's why I said
that. But those myths are also the attraction of sport; it does
inspire people to try stuff, go hard, delay gratification, etc. Those
are all myths of our society, and useful. It just would be better if
the inspiration for those myths weren't actually crooks.
RicodJour
http://www.chessbase.com/news/2005/susanpolgar07.jpg
and
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Q0lTtPVTG40/S7JEJWecOqI/AAAAAAABPXE/sTYvtDz-FBE/s1600/Susan+WC.jpg
How come I'm starting to think Barry hit on her and she said no...?
R