- #36
berkeman
Mentor
- 64,445
- 15,800
But she benifited from that, no? Why would she be upset?
I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.
So much wrong about this man. I can't post it all, but take a minute to read it.This was about Lance's sociopathic spectacle.
At one point during the interview, he couldn't recall how many people he'd sued. Really. He not only didn't know the number, he couldn't even be sure when asked about specific individuals that his mighty, powerful legal team relentlessly tried to bury.
It's worth noting that many of the people he's sued through the years in an effort to protect his lies and glory were one-time close friends, roommates, teammates, business partners and associates.
Is there another person in America who has sued so many people he once liked – for telling the truth, mind you – that he can't remember all of them? Anyone?
What you and your bank account and those sleepless nights you can't forget -- he can't remember.
He was, and likely remains, nothing but a machine of personal glorification, no concept of his real place in the world. Now that the truth is out, it's not about the cheating so much as it's about the way he fought dirty to protect the cheating.
"I was a bully," he acknowledged. "In the sense that I tried to control the narrative, and if I didn't like what somebody said, I tried to control that and say that's a lie."
Except he didn't stop at saying "that's a lie." He'd start there, then go on the attack, often trying to ruin his accusers professionally and, perhaps, personally, maybe legally and certainly financially.
Wow, this guy was really not nice.
So much wrong about this man. I can't post it all, but take a minute to read it.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-...-image-in-mea-culpa-with-oprah-062222144.html
He might end up losing a few of the "hundred million":Publicly humilitated? Lost trophies? Big deal. He's set for life.
He was a very mean, nasty, vindictive a-hole? Also, read some of the other links about this guy.
See here.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4231162&postcount=24
It's the rules. Break the rules, you lose. "Everyone does it" is no excuse. Anyone that does it loses. That's the rules. To say there should be no punishment because of rampant abuse is idiotic, IMO.Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.
Why exactly should he keep those medals? They're awarded to the person who wins the tournament without breaking the rules. He didn't do that so he doesn't deserve them. Similarly the question of doping being rampant doesn't come into it. It can play a part in the debate about drugs in sport and what to do but it's irrelevant to this as no matter how you cut it he broke the rules. If everyone did then none of them deserve it.Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.
Being angry at people for revealing your cheating is one thing, persecuting them with every means you have is nothing short of evil. Unless you think it's morally acceptable to detour to devastate people financially and professionally so that they won't reveal that you don't deserve what you have?This is a sport, not a beauty pageant. I'd be angry if people were being vindictive, accusing me of cheating (even if I were) when most of the people in the sport are also utilizing epo.
What kind of comment is that? Are you saying that the people who have come forward deserved what they got? Do you think he is at all justified with the level of persecution that has come to light? Calling it "being mean" is disingenuous, being mean would have been to call them names not set out to ruin their career and have them sued.Just because one is telling the truth doesn't mean that person is also a good person. There are many reasons as to why people do things, so saying Lance is being mean to those people really is looking at one side and nothing else. It is favoritism, and I dislike it when people equate "whistle-blowers" as saints that did nothing wrong or were just being good citizens.
Arguably this isn't true if you take into consideration that the title is for those who win and by definition in the case that means coming first without cheating. If you didn't win then the title isn't yours. It's akin to giving out a world record to someone who it is later revealed didn't do the feat.On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?
I don't think dishonest people deserve fair treatment. People who are ruining sports with drugs should be thrown out of their profession for life and all their titles/awards should be burned down.On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?
But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.I don't think dishonest people deserve fair treatment. People who are ruining drugs in sports should be thrown out of their profession for life and all their titles/awards should be burned down.
It's unfair to punish some and not punish others but I think that's fine. However in the future, I would wish to see all players to be punished as strictly as possible if tested positive for drugs.But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.
As they are discovered, they should be, which, I believe, is the intent of the commitee in this case. There will be no alternate winners named for the years Armstrong won.But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.
So perhaps it's not surprising that the director of the Tour de France declared that if the International Cycling Union (UCI) decides not to appeal USADA's decision to ban Armstrong for life and strip him of his seven Tour titles, there will be no replacement winner named for years 1999 through 2005.
"It indicates that no one in the races was above suspicion, which highlights the fact that doping was prevalent during the entire period," says Dick Pound, former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
There appears to be a problem with the testing protocol. Is it the case that you can only get caught if someone blabs?Of the 21 top three finishers in the Tour de France during Lance Armstrong's victory streak, only one has not been tied to doping, according to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. His name is Fernando Escartin, who finished third in 1999 -- the first of Armstrong's seven consecutive titles -- and even Escartin is subject to suspicion.
Armstrong was caught twice, but used his connections to get out of it. I believe it is in one of the previously posted links.This is from Evo's link.
There appears to be a problem with the testing protocol. Is it the case that you can only get caught if someone blabs?
Don't know about what is spelled out in the rules, but Floyd Landis and Alberto Contador have also been stripped of TDF titles. It's not just Armstrong.On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?
Yes, in fact we do. We only punish the ones for which the evidence is solid enough, and/or we have the resources to pursue.But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.
Given that their titles were stripped, I can't see how mentalist can justify his position that Armstrong should not be punished in the same way.Don't know about what is spelled out in the rules, but Floyd Landis and Alberto Contador have also been stripped of TDF titles. It's not just Armstrong.
Bingo, he can't.Given that their titles were stripped, I can't see how mentalist can justify his position that Armstrong should not be punished in the same way.
It's the rules. Break the rules, you lose. "Everyone does it" is no excuse. Anyone that does it loses. That's the rules. To say there should be no punishment because of rampant abuse is idiotic, IMO.
Arguably this isn't true if you take into consideration that the title is for those who win and by definition in the case that means coming first without cheating.
What kind of comment is that? Are you saying that the people who have come forward deserved what they got? Do you think he is at all justified with the level of persecution that has come to light? Calling it "being mean" is disingenuous, being mean would have been to call them names not set out to ruin their career and have them sued.
Being angry at people for revealing your cheating is one thing, persecuting them with every means you have is nothing short of evil. Unless you think it's morally acceptable to detour to devastate people financially and professionally so that they won't reveal that you don't deserve what you have?
If it is the case that the drugs are dangerous, then by taking them, you are forcing others to either take them as well, or stay out of the competition.
Did you mean "If it is the case that the drugs improve your performance, then by taking them, you are forcing others to either take them as well, or stay out of the competition."? Because being dangerous doesn't make sense in your statement.If it is the case that the drugs are dangerous, then by taking them, you are forcing others to either take them as well, or stay out of the competition.
It's possible that some deaths have occurred due to doping, perhaps because it is uncontrolled/unregulated.Oops. I meant to say that by forcing others to dope or go home you are inducing them into a dangerous situation.
I don't know the nature of the drugs that enhance bicycling ability. Are they dangerous?
That isn't a fair comparison. The Nobel prize is awarded for significant contribution to a field, sports awards are given for winning the competition within the confines of the rules and the rules state no doping.There are talks about testing students for drugs because there seems to be higher usage of adderall among students. If one wins a nobel prize because s/he confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs, are we going to take that nobel prize away?
Do you make all of these posts just to troll? You seriously see nothing wrong with people cheating, breaking rules, doping for an advanatge, because you believe that everyone should do it, etc... We wish to raise the level of critical thinking thinking on this forum, not bring it down.What are the dangers of training in elite sports? In order to compete, athletes must go through rigorous training that does have harmful impacts on the competitor. Not only that we see the dangers of playing football, one of which is decreased longevity. I have yet to see a credible study regarding the dangers of performance enhancing drugs. That is the dangers with the use of the latter outweighing the non-use.
There is even performance enhancing drugs used in science by scientists:
http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20080409/poll-scientists-use-brain-boosting-drugs
Banning these drugs or penalizing others for their use is, to me, backwards. No-one has an unfair advantage if everyone is utilizing the drug. They all are just about "equal" (not in the strictest of sense as naturally, some are better than others which means even if they all took drugs, it would be the same footing).
There are talks about testing students for drugs because there seems to be higher usage of adderall among students. But, in regards to the link above, if one wins a nobel prize because s/he confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs, are we going to take that nobel prize away?
I don't understand why you don't accept the point that medals are awarded for winning within the rules therefore if it's found out that you broke the rules your medals should be removed.Lance broke the rules. However, what credible reason aside from rule breaking is there to take away his medals if he was performing on the same level (but to a higher degree) with other competitors? I'd like a better reason rather than, "its the rules," as even though a rule is in place, that does not mean it is a reasonable rule when concerning the context of the situation.
This is ridiculous. Show me the rules where it says as long as everyone breaks the rules, it's OK. The onus is on you to back up your claims.I stated above that it isn't cheating if the playing field is leveled.
Lance broke the rules. However, what credible reason aside from rule breaking is there to take away his medals if he was performing on the same level (but to a higher degree) with other competitors? I'd like a better reason rather than, "its the rules," as even though a rule is in place, that does not mean it is a reasonable rule when concerning the context of the situation.
@Evo: I stated above that it isn't cheating if the playing field is leveled. Who is cheating against whom if everyone is utilizing similar drugs in cycling? Cheating is having an unfair advantage. There was no cheating within what has been stated among many cyclists, even those whistle-blowing. The consistent statements made among many is that, "there is a wide use of performance enhancing drugs and it would be stupid not to take them." Again make your case about where cheating occurred.