justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index justcycling.myfastforum.org
Just Cycling
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sticky Articles
Popular Topics
Giro 2017:Dolce,Cafe and Grappa! Stages 16-21May 23rd - 28th
FPs for Giro Week 1 + Jerseys: 5th-12th May 2017
Giro 2017:I Primi Piatti: Stages 7-10: May 12th-16th.
FPs for Giro Wk 2, stages 8 to 14: 13th - 20th May 2017
Tour de Romandie, starts Tues, 25th April
Critérium du Dauphiné: Sun 4th June - Sun 11th June 2017
Giro 2017: I Secondi Piatti:-Stages 11-15:-May 17th-21st
Tour of Romandie
Top posters
HuwB 14709
Bartali 13461
kathy 12847
CapeRoadie 10191
Mrs John Murphy 8673
Biosphere 8528
Nolte 6680
Slapshot 3 6542
Fontfroide 6062
smarauder68 5365
gerry12ie 5147
SlowRower 4990
Sooty 4913
bianchigirl 4726
cardinal guzman 4659
Boogerd_Fan 4590
Ralphnorman 4323
crash48 4283
mr shifter 4117
cyclingtv 3854
berck 3767
sheeponabike 3723
last km 3593
bbnaz 3515
naspa 3505
More Doping News!
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 331, 332, 333  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
naspa



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 3505


Location: The only living boy in New Cross

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:42 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

You seem to be saying that it is unfair that cheating Richard Virenque is still adored by French housewives, while Lance Armstrong is treated like a leper. That essentially under-pinning it all is anti-Americanism.

In addition you appear to be saying that the end justifies the means, which ultimately legitimates any course of action - from riders have to dope in order to keep up, to criminals have the right to rob in order to feed their families.

I would have thought Chris Benoit would be the perfect example of why PED usage should not be legalised.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MerlinGuy



Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 654


Location: Fort Collins... for now, but don't blink

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

naspa wrote:
So really what it's all about is legitimising Armstrong?


Bingo!

The way you can tell is that there is no outrage against the quality of the positive tests for Petacchi, Piepoli, DiLuca, Heras, etc, etc, etc. The only riders who can claim incorrect testing are American riders who rode on USPS or DC. That's it folks! For everyone else the testing system fine, so suck it up.
_________________
"Smartphones give you access to experiences you would have had personally if you hadn't spent all your time on the phone." - Element12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, bullshit the both of you. I don't like Armstrong or the American riders any more or less than any other riders. I liked Merckx better than anybody. I liked Big Mig. I liked Hinault the best. He was the last of the great ones. I love Cancellara, especially after today.

Naspa, I'm saying that Virenque is adored by the French as much as Armstrong is in America. We piss on whatever rider we happen not to like around here. It's arbitrary, as far as I can tell. I don't think there's an anti-American thing here (okay, maybe sm, but he deserves it), either. I don't think "it's unfair that Virenque is adored while Armstrong isn't". No, what I'm saying is that whether you adore a Virenque or an Armstrong has more to do with your feelings about them in general not whether or not they doped and got away with it. If you're anti-doping, you should hate all cyclists. If you're not, you can't hate them because they dope.
_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MerlinGuy wrote:
naspa wrote:
So really what it's all about is legitimising Armstrong?


Bingo!

The way you can tell is that there is no outrage against the quality of the positive tests for Petacchi, Piepoli, DiLuca, Heras, etc, etc, etc. The only riders who can claim incorrect testing are American riders who rode on USPS or DC. That's it folks! For everyone else the testing system fine, so suck it up.


Personally I think the testing is really inaccurate for everybody. A lot of guys over the years did a lot of dope and still somehow managed to test negative, even when that wasn't possible, if you believe guys like Voet.

Why didn't you start the Heras campaign, MerlinGuy? Because you think he's guilty, that's why. Me, too. I didn't start the Landis thread, that's for sure. I always believed Landis doped. I also think Hamilton doped. I also think Armstrong doped. Shit I think everyone's doped in cycling, you know that. I do find it amusing that Landis can stretch his "innocence" out this long and get a book deal in the process. If your entire career and livelihood hinged on a positive test, you might go down swinging as well.

I think the Americans generate the most press, because they are the ultimate deniers (is that a word) and the most vocal, not entirely due to their own doing. They deny until it is no longer reasonable to deny (e.g., Hamilton). The press keeps their stories going. Landis' case still hasn't been decided. He'll probably go down soon. He's simply exercising his rights. Who wouldn't?

The bingo is legitimizing cycling, not Armstrong. That's the point you two have missed.
_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kathy



Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 12847


Location: Formerly Hen Wlad fy Nhadau, now, Oliva, Valencia, Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

naspa wrote:
Kathy - did you see CN today? There was a piece on it.

Jaksche visits the Tour


Just over a week after stunning the cycling world with doping revelations, Jörg Jaksche was invited to the Tour de France stage finish in Gent by the German public TV channel ARD to talk about his experiences. The rider, who set the entire peloton on the defensive after admitting to using banned substances and blood doping, was a surprising choice after commentators Marcel Wüst and Jens Heppner were dismissed by German television, who did not want to use the former professionals because of doping confessions of their former peers Erik Zabel and Rolf Aldag.



So they sacked Marcel Wust did they? I think that's a great shame, he always seemed to be a very good intelligent analyst of bike racing, and I really felt sorry for him when he lost the sight of an eye. OK, so he was with Festina etc, but can any top cyclist from that era hold their hands up and say truthfully 'I never doped'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
naspa



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 3505


Location: The only living boy in New Cross

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How does it 'legitimate' the sport?

Sounds like something the Ministry of Love might put out. Peace through War...


Last edited by naspa on Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MerlinGuy



Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 654


Location: Fort Collins... for now, but don't blink

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that testing is great and accurate. And the only time anyone seems to question it is when it pertains to an American rider.

If your entire career and livelihood hinged on a positive test, you might go down swinging as well.
If you call witness tampering and computer system hacking 'swinging'. Me, I call it criminal activity. Even if Landis gets cleared he should be banned from the sport for the investigation based criminal offenses. But then again Americans spend millions of dollars to watch a rapist box.
_________________
"Smartphones give you access to experiences you would have had personally if you hadn't spent all your time on the phone." - Element12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
tonymcf



Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 169



PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can I just point out that Lefevere was at Domo-Farm Frites in 2001? Wink Not that I think he knows nothing about doping Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MerlinGuy wrote:
I think that testing is great and accurate. And the only time anyone seems to question it is when it pertains to an American rider.

If your entire career and livelihood hinged on a positive test, you might go down swinging as well.
If you call witness tampering and computer system hacking 'swinging'. Me, I call it criminal activity. Even if Landis gets cleared he should be banned from the sport for the investigation based criminal offenses. But then again Americans spend millions of dollars to watch a rapist box.


Wasn't talking Landis here. Voet says the testing was often way off. I'm sure it's gotten better in the past ten years, but anyone who thinks the testing is 100% foolproof is surely mistaken.

Here's a few rhetorical questions I'll pose to this group:

How tough would it be for anyone to take a glob of testosterone gel (pretty easily had) and slap it on the back of any rider on a mountain stage? And would that rider show up positive on drug testing that day or in subsequent days even though he was "clean"? And would that slapped-on glob improve his performance?
_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

naspa wrote:
How does it 'legitimate' the sport?

Sounds like something the Ministry of Love might put out. Peace through War...


I meant it legitimates a win, if everyone's doped. The point was that Armstrong's wins are not lessened if he doped, since everyone else was doped. Nor are Heras', Hamilton's, Landis', Ullrich's, Jaksche's, Zabel's, Riis', and so on...
_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
naspa



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 3505


Location: The only living boy in New Cross

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How exactly does it make it legitimate? Legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder.

You believe that to already be the case. You already believe that Armstrong's wins are legitimate so really it does come down to basically legitimating Armstrong.

Your argument is basically a two-step program to vindicating Armstrong:

i) Everyone was one drugs. Therefore Armstrong did not have an unfair advantage.

ii) The impact of the drugs was minimal (the level playing field argument) so even if everyone else was on drugs Armstrong was still the best.

Hence and therefore Armstrong is still the greatest.

Which takes me back to my original point that this is really about legitimating Armstrong's wins.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

naspa wrote:
How exactly does it make it legitimate? Legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder.

You believe that to already be the case. You already believe that Armstrong's wins are legitimate so really it does come down to basically legitimating Armstrong.

Your argument is basically a two-step program to vindicating Armstrong:

i) Everyone was on drugs. Therefore Armstrong did not have an unfair advantage.

ii) The impact of the drugs was minimal (the level playing field argument) so even if everyone else was on drugs Armstrong was still the best.

Hence and therefore Armstrong is still the greatest.

Which takes me back to my original point that this is really about legitimating Armstrong's wins.


Legitimating every cyclist's wins.

Merckx was the greatest.

My idea is to legitimize all cyclists wins so I can finally forget about doping altogether and just sit on my arse and watch the racing. That's the ultimate goal, naspa: reclining chair followed by daily nap.

Call me "napsa".
_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
naspa



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 3505


Location: The only living boy in New Cross

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry but how does minimalising the impact of doping make the achievements of riders more legitimate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

naspa wrote:
Sorry but how does minimalising the impact of doping make the achievements of riders more legitimate?


Many fans appear to believe that only a few riders dope. The ones who dope get caught, mostly, they believe. Their wins were the result of doping, or "better doping". I disagree with all that. If everybody's doped, the playing field is more equal than if only a few riders dope. In a 100% doped field, the best rider still wins, I believe. It's easier for me that way.

Now, please let me recline for my nap, naspa.
_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tonymcf



Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 169



PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Rider A and Rider B train to the same level etc does it not mean then that whoever comes up with the best dope will have an advantage over the other? Back to square one again?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonymcf wrote:
If Rider A and Rider B train to the same level etc does it not mean then that whoever comes up with the best dope will have an advantage over the other? Back to square one again?


They have equal access to "the best dope". So, no.
_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tonymcf



Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 169



PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But how can you be sure? How can you be sure no-one is topping himself up with anything else too?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HuwB



Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 14709


Location: Deep in the Black Mountains.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonymcf wrote:
But how can you be sure? How can you be sure no-one is topping himself up with anything else too?

He isn't. He just likes to tell us it's so. Wink
Never has been that way. It's always been about, "More cash buys a better stash...."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
grrr



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1245


Location: Guildford, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

naspa wrote:
How exactly does it make it legitimate? Legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder.

You believe that to already be the case. You already believe that Armstrong's wins are legitimate so really it does come down to basically legitimating Armstrong.

Your argument is basically a two-step program to vindicating Armstrong:

i) Everyone was one drugs. Therefore Armstrong did not have an unfair advantage.

ii) The impact of the drugs was minimal (the level playing field argument) so even if everyone else was on drugs Armstrong was still the best.

Hence and therefore Armstrong is still the greatest.

Which takes me back to my original point that this is really about legitimating Armstrong's wins.


Can I reverse the question for a moment? If Armstrong's wins are not 'legitimate', then is that because:
1. he was doped but his main rivals weren't?
2. he was lucky to react better to doping than his rivals?
3. he was concentrating on the Tour to the exclusion of all others?
4. there is some other reason I haven't considered?

I wish he hadn't won 5 tours in a row, let alone 7, but I find it hard to imagine that his wins were significantly less (or indeed more) legitimate than anyone else's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cyclingtv



Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 3854



PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HuwB wrote:
tonymcf wrote:
But how can you be sure? How can you be sure no-one is topping himself up with anything else too?
He isn't. He just likes to tell us it's so. Wink Never has been that way.
It's always been about "More cash buys a better stash
dope.. schmope.. whomever cheats now.. will be a cheater later.. as history proves.. it repeats itself..

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 331, 332, 333  Next
Page 2 of 333

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum