Log in:  

Register

The Sidebar Thread

Drop in, give us some feedback and talk to the team

Moderator: Irondan

Re: Re:

25 Apr 2016 12:31

Robert21 wrote:
aphronesis wrote: What seems to be emerging is the need to distinguish and negotiate difference/equality.

There's the rub. For years we have been told that feminism was essentially egalitarian, focused on achieving equality of treatment.

It is now clear that 'equality' increasingly means 'treating women in a preferential manner'. Hence it is OK for Sutton to be a forthright as he likes with his male riders, but needs to treat his female riders with a much higher level of deference and respect if they are not going to hurl charges of 'sexist' at him.

Same with the doctors dispute in the UK, where new contracts are being brought in that base a doctor's salary and rate of promotion on their level of clinical experience and expertise. Fair enough one might think, but apparently this 'discriminates' against women, many of whom work part time, like to take long career breaks (often to have children) and who think that they should get the same salary increases and promotions as male doctors who work 60 hours a week plus, year in and year out, as though time spent playing with their children contributes to their skills as a doctor as much as working with patients and doing further training would!


depends what you mean by 'preferential'....
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

25 Apr 2016 12:35

echoes, good post.

For a good hint at the use of EPO in the Netherlands in 88, check this post on Van Gennep:
viewtopic.php?p=1906774#p1906774

That said, I totally agree with your assessment that wrt epo in 88 in the Netherlands/Belgium there is a burden of evidence which has not yet been met satisfactorily.

Imo the case of Greg Lemond is (much) different, however, in as far as there are serious rumors about him introducing EPO, including a 1990 whistleblower article. In other words: there is already a reasonable suspicion (beyond his performances). Then if you go look at the available data, it all points in the direction that those rumors aren't just random smoke.
The assumption that he took EPO just answers so many questions and is supported by so much contextual data (do ask if you want me to expand).
For me it's occam's razor.

The only question for me personally is when he got onto the EPO program.

1986 doesn't seem out of reach (see articles linked above, suggesting it was circulating in the States already in that year). It's also the year that Lemond keeps referring to as his strongest year ever.

1987: in the hospital, quite likely (see Sidebar thread for recent discussion)

1988: no idea what happened there.

1989 Giro and beyond: very likely.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

25 Apr 2016 12:55

I have been consistent throughout. I don't think LeMond has a very good grasp on medical situations because he is an athlete and not a medical doctor. When did I ever suggest that he was lying? EPO is not a treatment for any condition that he ever was known to have had, ergo he would never have been likely to receive EPO treatment as part of his medical care. You have never explained that salient point. EPO is not a treatment for traumatic loss of blood, because it does not restore RBC in a short amount of time and makes the blood sludgy which can lead to fatal heart issues in bed-ridden patients. Show a link where EPO is used on gun shot trauma patients in ICU. Otherwise, quit making medical claims that you cannot support with evidence.
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,913
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

25 Apr 2016 13:13

djpbaltimore wrote:I have been consistent throughout. I don't think LeMond has a very good grasp on medical situations because he is an athlete and not a medical doctor. EPO is not a treatment for any condition that he ever was known to have had, ergo he would never have been likely to receive EPO treatment as part of his medical care. You have never explained that salient point. EPO is not a treatment for traumatic loss of blood, because it does not restore RBC in a short amount of time and makes the blood sludgy which can lead to fatal heart issues in bed-ridden patients. Show a link where EPO is used on gun shot trauma patients in ICU. Otherwise, quit making medical claims that you cannot support with evidence.

That's fair enough. I'm not in a position to challenge you on that.
So you think he was getting neither blood transfusions nor EPO in 1987, even if he really had 70% blood volume loss and 19 hematocrit?
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

25 Apr 2016 13:37

sniper wrote:echoes, good post.

For a good hint at the use of EPO in the Netherlands in 88, check this post on Van Gennep:
viewtopic.php?p=1906774#p1906774

That said, I totally agree with your assessment that wrt epo in 88 in the Netherlands/Belgium there is a burden of evidence which has not yet been met satisfactorily.

Imo the case of Greg Lemond is (much) different, however, in as far as there are serious rumors about him introducing EPO, including a 1990 whistleblower article. In other words: there is already a reasonable suspicion (beyond his performances). Then if you go look at the available data, it all points in the direction that those rumors aren't just random smoke.
The assumption that he took EPO just answers so many questions and is supported by so much contextual data (do ask if you want me to expand).
For me it's occam's razor.

The only question for me personally is when he got onto the EPO program.

1986 doesn't seem out of reach (see articles linked above, suggesting it was circulating in the States already in that year). It's also the year that Lemond keeps referring to as his strongest year ever.

1987: in the hospital, quite likely (see Sidebar thread for recent discussion)

1988: no idea what happened there.

1989 Giro and beyond: very likely.


let's run with it sniper :)

so presuming it gave him benefits which outstrip your standard PEDs...what was he doing on a season-long basis (as his results were pretty consistent) in 82, 83, 84 and 85?

btw '88 he was being crap as you might expect after having been shot the previous year and so being down on the miles (which is of course why he ended up at ADR)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

25 Apr 2016 13:48

gillan1969 wrote:...
btw '88 he was being crap as you might expect after having been shot the previous year and so being down on the miles (which is of course why he ended up at ADR)
yeah, agreed.
I meant to say "no idea what happened EPO-wise" (i.e. whether or not he had some that year).
I think 1988 is irrelevant in the wider scheme of things, for the reason you mention.

so presuming it gave him benefits which outstrip your standard PEDs...what was he doing on a season-long basis (as his results were pretty consistent) in 82, 83, 84 and 85?
It outstrips your standard PEDs in terms of practicality, first and foremost. And perhaps only in terms of practicality.
Performance-wise, I have no idea how much benefit he may or may not have gotten from EPO compared to his previous non-EPO program. (Cf. DamianoMachiavelli's earlier post suggesting a blood transfusion program may have been similarly effective, performance-wise.)

btw, generally I don't think the plausibility of Lemond using blood transfusions in the late 70s/early 80s should be discussed in this thread. Better to wait for the Lemond thread to reopen, imo.

edit: only just saw Maxiton's post. Max, please take this post off if you think it doesn't belong here.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

25 Apr 2016 13:50

I am surprised that he did not receive a transfusion of any kind based on his claimed blood loss. But if they thought a transfusion was medically unnecessary for survival, maybe they did not want to risk the small (but not zero) risk of getting HIV. But, if his blood loss was life threatening, they would've transfused him. It would be medically unethical not to do so.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652237/
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,913
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: First EPO users in the peloton?

25 Apr 2016 15:57

Spawn of e wrote:
pmcg76 wrote:"We rode 6 hours on our first spin and I was pretty knackered when it was over. Next day I was stuck to the road and turned back after 2 hours. I felt drained and run down.

Normally I would take my first vitamin injection 3 months into the season, but, damn it, I needed it. So I took it and the next day I felt much better."

This is from a former pro, I am putting it here as it illustrates what a difference a simple legal injection may make to an athlete. Now if a simple B12vitamin injection can make that much of a difference in a day, imagine how much a cyclist may improve in a week if they are being treated regularly with legal products, especially if it was an athlete who was returning to their previous level having been ill. As to the cyclist, see if people can figure out who it is.


Lance Armstring? Dave Stoller? Barry Muzzin?

What is your point inre to this thread?


Because people are arguing that LeMond was one of the first EPO users because of that improvement during the Giro and disregarding the iron shots theory.

If a rider feels a big improvement in one day after a vitamin shot, an improvement over a period of a week taking iron shots doesn't seem outlandish when the problem was a lack of iron, especially when you consider they would be sandbagging with the final stage in mind.
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,479
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

Re:

25 Apr 2016 16:22

ebandit wrote:chapeau! sniper.....i admire your dedication........

Mark L


Agreed! Great read.
sniper is to Lemond as Lemond was to Armstrong.
Do you own a bike brand called sniper? If so, you might wanna start looking over your shoulder.
User avatar the delgados
Member
 
Posts: 1,087
Joined: 02 May 2009 02:38
Location: Toronto

25 Apr 2016 17:21

For sake of truth in advertising, this thread should be titled LeMond (sic) II. A quite transparent stalking horse.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

25 Apr 2016 22:50

It's been a while since we've had a foaming at the mouth misogynist here, at least with Ryo banned so often. I can't say that I'm overjoyed to have this lad apply to fill the gap.
Zinoviev Letter
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,358
Joined: 18 Aug 2010 13:18

Re:

26 Apr 2016 09:24

Zinoviev Letter wrote:It's been a while since we've had a foaming at the mouth misogynist here

Yes, of course, anyone who dares to criticise even the most lunatic claims of the feminist movement, or who suggests that someone might not actually be guilty of sexism must be a 'misogynist'. :rolleyes:

Truth is, my main issue is not even with feminism, let alone women. Rather I don't like the 'mob rule' mentality that usually accompanies any claim that someone has behaved in a 'sexist' way. To point out, for example, that Tim Hunt was treated in a disgraceful way is not evidence of 'misogyny'.

Even more fundamentally, I have deep concerns about the way 'Enlightenment' values such as reason, logic, rationality, empiricism and so on stand for so little in this relativistic, post-modern world, where all that matters is creating and pushing a narrative that serves one's own (often political) ends. George Orwell saw that this was the pathway to totalitarianism, as when even science is held to be just another 'way of seeing the world, no more valid than any other, then the 'truth' is whatever the most influential say it is. In short we live in a world where reason counts for little and much of what happens in the world is based on politically motivated myths. (Even pro bike racing plays this game, explaining unbelievable performances by the myth of 'marginal gains', the 'plucky, honest Brit', and so on.)

It just so happens that when it comes to myth-making and hostility to the 'White western male' values of the Enlightenment, the feminist movement has been one of the most determined and effective.

A good example is the myth that the suffragettes in Britain won ordinary women the vote. The reality is that not even men were granted universal suffrage until 1918, with the suffraggetes such as Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst essentially running a terrorist campaign (planting bombs in places such as Westminster Abbey, arson, vandalism, assault and even trying to kill the prime minister with an axe) with the goal of winning the vote for the women of the privileged, land-owning classes, like themselves.

They were not fighting for votes for ordinary women (or men) with the exception of Sylvia Pankhurst, who was thrown out of her mother's Women's Social and Political Union for her socialist values. Apart from Sylvia the Pankhurst's were a pretty nasty bunch, running the 'white feather' movement in WWI and being involved in various right-wing and even proto-fascist movements. (For example, Adela Pankhurst was a founder of the Australia first movement.) Biggest irony of all is that women eventually got the vote not because of the suffragettes but because the huge sacrifices made by (mainly) men in WWI made it impossible to deny ordinary people the vote any longer.

Myths are powerful and they persist even when it is widely known that they are false.

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

As a certain German politician once wrote..
The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed... The primitive simplicity of the minds of the masses renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favours the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

...all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

Re: Re:

26 Apr 2016 09:59

Robert21 wrote:
Zinoviev Letter wrote:It's been a while since we've had a foaming at the mouth misogynist here

Yes, of course, anyone who dares to criticise even the most lunatic claims of the feminist movement, or who suggests that someone might not actually be guilty of sexism must be a 'misogynist'. :rolleyes:

Truth is, my main issue is not even with feminism, let alone women. Rather I don't like the 'mob rule' mentality that usually accompanies any claim that someone has behaved in a 'sexist' way. To point out, for example, that Tim Hunt was treated in a disgraceful way is not evidence of 'misogyny'.

Even more fundamentally, I have deep concerns about the way 'Enlightenment' values such as reason, logic, rationality, empiricism and so on stand for so little in this relativistic, post-modern world, where all that matters is creating and pushing a narrative that serves one's own (often political) ends. George Orwell saw that this was the pathway to totalitarianism, as when even science is held to be just another 'way of seeing the world, no more valid than any other, then the 'truth' is whatever the most influential say it is. In short we live in a world where reason counts for little and much of what happens in the world is based on politically motivated myths. (Even pro bike racing plays this game, explaining unbelievable performances by the myth of 'marginal gains', the 'plucky, honest Brit', and so on.)

It just so happens that when it comes to myth-making and hostility to the 'White western male' values of the Enlightenment, the feminist movement has been one of the most determined and effective.

A good example is the myth that the suffragettes in Britain won ordinary women the vote. The reality is that not even men were granted universal suffrage until 1918, with the suffraggetes such as Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst essentially running a terrorist campaign (planting bombs in places such as Westminster Abbey, arson, vandalism, assault and even trying to kill the prime minister with an axe) with the goal of winning the vote for the women of the privileged, land-owning classes, like themselves.

They were not fighting for votes for ordinary women (or men) with the exception of Sylvia Pankhurst, who was thrown out of her mother's Women's Social and Political Union for her socialist values. Apart from Sylvia the Pankhurst's were a pretty nasty bunch, running the 'white feather' movement in WWI and being involved in various right-wing and even proto-fascist movements. (For example, Adela Pankhurst was a founder of the Australia first movement.) Biggest irony of all is that women eventually got the vote not because of the suffragettes but because the huge sacrifices made by (mainly) men in WWI made it impossible to deny ordinary people the vote any longer.

Myths are powerful and they persist even when it is widely known that they are false.

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

As a certain German politician once wrote..
The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed... The primitive simplicity of the minds of the masses renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favours the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

...all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

bet you're a man
:D
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,593
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Re:

26 Apr 2016 10:55

TourOfSardinia wrote:bet you're a man
:D

Arguing in favour of reason, rationality and empiricism, means I must be a man? Hardly takes Sherlock Holmes does it? Similarly, I guess that one could easily deduce that Sandra Harding was likely to be female, based on nothing more than her claim that Newton's Principa Mathematica is a 'rape manual'. :rolleyes:
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

26 Apr 2016 11:18

By the way, I see that Nicole Cooke has come out arguing that the different distances raced by men and women are 'sexist'. I would agree that men and women should ride the same distances on the track, and have a feeling that different distances have been used in the past to make it harder to compare the performances of the elite men and women. How about the road though?

I see that last year's men's RR championship, over nearly 260 km, was run off at 41.6 km/hr, whilst the women averaged 38.1 km/hr over just 129.6 km. Would it really be better to have the women's event also cover 260km, even if the average speed was, say, 35 km/hr? How about the under 23's and juniors? Surely, if the women should be racing over the full distance, shouldn't they?

Of course, if this were done I can see some arguing that it was now 'sexist' to expect women to race the same distance as the men, so failing to pay due regard to the physical difference between men and women. After all, in the name of 'equality' women in the army have to pass less stringent physical tests in order to become officers, the fire service cannot ask recruits to pass physical tests that women tend to find to be too demanding, and so on.

Or is my real problem that, as a man, I expect arguments about 'sexism' to make logical sense? :)
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

Re:

26 Apr 2016 14:47

TourOfSardinia wrote:Girl power:

Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want
So tell me what you want, what you really, really want
I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want
So tell me what you want, what you really, really want
I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha)
I wanna really, really, really wanna zigazig ah

:D
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

Re: Shane Sutton - Team Sky coach

26 Apr 2016 17:45

Clinic Exclusive: Shocking Photos Prove Vicky's Claim "Sexism Rife At British Cycling"
Image
User avatar oldcrank
Member
 
Posts: 1,467
Joined: 24 Jul 2009 07:16

Re:

26 Apr 2016 17:58

Libertine Seguros wrote:Many statements about poor treatment have been made over many years without the recourse to accusations of sexism, so it's not like they've just plunged in there and played the offended card. A lot of the problem at BC is simply blatant favouritism, but seemingly manifesting itself in some ugly ways.

Yes, poor treatment, blatant favouritism, even bullying do seem to have been rife in British Cycling. Not sure that it amounts to true 'sexism' though, even if those who are aggrieved are using this 'toxic' term, knowing this is the surest way to cause the maximum impact and amount of damage.

Libertine Seguros wrote:It does your case no good at all either to not acknowledge that there are many different interpretations and viewpoints within feminism as well, just like any philosophical, social or political ideology, and not all of these viewpoints define sexism, misogyny and all the other terms you've got into a state about the same way.

I think this must be directed at me. Yes, as I said, some who would call themselves feminists even recognise that evolutionary biology has a lot to tell us about gender roles. That said, the vast bulk of the feminist movement is, one way or another, faithful to the constructs of relativism and post modernism, and express an intrinsic hostility to science and reason. Like religious fundamentalists they know they must adopt this standpoint if they are to argue that ''gender is nothing but a social construct" and so on. Even Germain Greer's hostility to trans individuals arises from this faith, as to her women are socially constructed, not products of their genetic makeup. This same underlying faith underpins the vast majority of the feminism pushed in publications such as the Guardian newspaper, so the position I am critical of is still pretty much mainstream, even if there are a few voices of reason even within the feminist movement itself.

I also pointed out that the sort of social constructivism I am critical of is not confined just to the feminist movement. Trying to influence others with carefully fabricated narratives that serve one's interests but might bear only a passing resemblance to objective reality is very much 'the name of the game' these days.
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

26 Apr 2016 18:13

Anyhow, I am still trying to work out Vicky P's take on 'sexism'. Isn't the sexual objectification of women supposed to be one of the greatest crimes of 'sexism'. So how does that tie in with her doing near-naked photo shoots for lads mags?

Image
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

Re:

26 Apr 2016 18:23

saganftw wrote:she is free to objectify her body if she wants and god bless her for that

Yes, I am aware that my real problem is expecting the whole gender debate to make any sort of consistent, logical sense. :)

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
Robert21
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 Jul 2012 07:45

PreviousNext

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Back to top