Log in:  

Register

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

12 Nov 2017 03:52

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.


I would think the moral indignation would be more over the parlayability into bill-y-on dollar front shams and not this or that public figure.

But hey, everyone loves a good Nazi evil analogy when they can’t do more proximate analysis.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,454
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

12 Nov 2017 05:51

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.


Agree that it's all about inducement. If the Feds have to give up a little money to Fraudulent Landis in order to recover some for themselves, who is hurt by that? Looking at cycling like it's a great moral play doesn't fit the facts!
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,147
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

12 Nov 2017 12:55

MarkvW wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.


Agree that it's all about inducement. If the Feds have to give up a little money to Fraudulent Landis in order to recover some for themselves, who is hurt by that? Looking at cycling like it's a great moral play doesn't fit the facts!


Case in point, #2.

A slightly different reading than you gave it all on February 7, 2014. N'est-ce pas?
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 171
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

15 Nov 2017 14:07

Anyone hear the comments about Ferrari on the Rich Roll interview?

https://youtu.be/IwOikYsLV_c?t=22m

It starts around the 22 minute mark.

What do you think he means by, "and probably still is"?
Scansorial
Junior Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 15:32

Re:

15 Nov 2017 14:17

Scansorial wrote:Anyone hear the comments about Ferrari on the Rich Roll interview?

https://youtu.be/IwOikYsLV_c?t=22m

It starts around the 22 minute mark.

What do you think he means by, "and probably still is"?
That nobody working today is as good as Ferrari was. Not that Ferrari is still working today (though he probably is, quietly, through his son or other surrogates.)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,979
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

15 Nov 2017 14:44

I liked how Armstrong criticised Vaughter's coaching plan for Craddock.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,169
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EdgarWinner, veganrob and 12 guests

Back to top