Armstrong & Unity

[runninboy]

... If it were like cycling, in a foreign country I would know about the Superbowl and every bad story in NFL.



and now you have convinced me that you are just trolling. I didn't say that at all and you know that. I said that the problem with cycling is that the average non-cyclist in the street knows these stories about cycling because that is about all that is published. there is a key logical difference between that and the absurd words you are attempting to put in my mouth.


and see my earlier comment about you just trying to troll me. I have clearly answered your attempts at points quite simply twice now. .

I am not trolling and i disagree with your contention that average non cyclists knows all these stories.I know plenty of people who know nothing of this. For instance I know a bartender who basically only thinks adults ride bicycles because their license to drive was taken away.
No doping scandals,
no race radio problems,
no organization problems.
But you know of all these things and believe those were the problems LA was talking about. I contend that these are the same type of problems other sports have and are reported frequently in those sports as well. The only things that are NOT reported as frequently in other sports is failure of drugs tests. So I would contend that was the underlying message. You feel otherwise obviously.
I singled you out as administrator as an example of the problem that even someone who should be broad minded has a biased view in regards to the sports they follow..
Not biased in the sense of being a LA fanboy but biased in the way you think cycling is portrayed in relation to other sports.
I live in America and we are bombarded with minutiae from all sports, as a cycling fan i also ignore most of it. But for purposes of rational discussion i am not about to pretend it doesn't exist.
Maybe it is different in your country, if so , Lucky you.

In regards to LA speaking cryptically, coming from a family of lawyers i can say most definitely that he does avoid directly commenting on many issues.Case in point his "most tested athlete claim" instead of a definitive denial in regards to doping allegations. In regards to Simeoni he did not admit to anything, he gave his opinion about Simeoni's character and then proceeded to deny any attempt to intimidate Simeoni. He left it up to people to put two & two together, as he frequently does. then he can fall back on "I never claimed that"

You feel otherwise. fine. I will post no more on the subject but when you look at things with an open mind as you did when reading the article on LA and refused to jump to conclusions . Maybe you should use the same logic when people question your view. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Some of us just think you are being selective in your view.

 

[Martin318is]

I singled you out as administrator as an example of the problem that even someone who should be broad minded has a biased view in regards to the sports they follow..

thats what I mean - you strangely seem to think I am biased towards being a Lance fanboy. Have a bit of a look around the forum outside this topic and see if you still maintain that point of view. The other reason I pointed it out is that I have a title of Administrator but am in fact simply a moderator. This indicates you havent seen many of my posts which would explain a lot.


The simple contention taht you are struggling with (and weirdly you raise being in family of lawyers as though that is relevant at any level) is that there is no evidence that EVERY word out of Lance's mouth has a Machiavellian intent. As we say in finance (another irrelevancy but hey what the hell) "Past results are no guarantee of future performance".

All I have said is that
a) I dont think Lance was talking about drugs at that specific moment, and
b) I agree with the premise that it would have been great if - for instance - the entire ASO vs the UCI ProTour debacle had been played out by representatives indoors and not slagged out in the press. That drove away sponsors and the result was poor. similarly, it would have been good if the public statements had not happened around the Pegasus license attempt. You would have to think that it would have been better for the sport if the team and the UCI played it out a bit more sensibly.

If you have trouble with those concepts (and you clearly do or you wouldnt be pulling Simeoni into the conversation) then there isn't much left to say. We disagree. End of.

 

[rhubroma]

thats what I mean - you strangely seem to think I am biased towards being a Lance fanboy. Have a bit of a look around the forum outside this topic and see if you still maintain that point of view. The other reason I pointed it out is that I have a title of Administrator but am in fact simply a moderator. This indicates you havent seen many of my posts which would explain a lot.


The simple contention taht you are struggling with (and weirdly you raise being in family of lawyers as though that is relevant at any level) is that there is no evidence that EVERY word out of Lance's mouth has a Machiavellian intent. As we say in finance (another irrelevancy but hey what the hell) "Past results are no guarantee of future performance".

All I have said is that
a) I dont think Lance was talking about drugs at that specific moment, and
b) I agree with the premise that it would have been great if - for instance - the entire ASO vs the UCI ProTour debacle had been played out by representatives indoors and not slagged out in the press. That drove away sponsors and the result was poor. similarly, it would have been good if the public statements had not happened around the Pegasus license attempt. You would have to think that it would have been better for the sport if the team and the UCI played it out a bit more sensibly.

If you have trouble with those concepts (and you clearly do or you wouldnt be pulling Simeoni into the conversation) then there isn't much left to say. We disagree. End of.

Though having the Pro Tour debacle slagged out in the press, as you say, demonstrates an ineptitude that is directly connected to the corruption and illicit practice that has been the praxis of this sport for a long time.

In other words, I can't disassociate the two issues.

And anybody, especially an Armstrong at this point, who is representing the sport and who isn't calling for, in no uncertain terms, internal change that is based upon greater transparancy; is simply for maintaining a system that should be overthrown and only doing so out of vapid self-interest.

 

[Martin318is]

Though having the Pro Tour debacle slagged out in the press, as you say, demonstrates an ineptitude that is directly connected to the corruption and illicit practice that has been the praxis of this sport for a long time.

In other words, I can't disassociate the two issues.

And anybody, especially an Armstrong at this point, who is representing the sport and who isn't calling for, in no uncertain terms, internal change that is based upon greater transparancy; is simply for maintaining a system that should be overthrown and only doing so out of vapid self-interest.

I think that the above is the only thing setting my opinion apart from anybody elses here. I can see them as separate issues. The essential criminality of some within the UCI is to me a different silo of problems If I wanted to accept that it is all one big issue with the way everything else was handled I would find myself having believe that all the team managers, organisers, press, and a lot of the riders were corrupt too. I agree that many are (like in most other sports) but I dont think that they ALL are.

Regarding the transparency comments, I completely agree with you if you are saying it while thinking about doping at the same time, but there ARE to me some issues which it IS a good idea to manage internally prior to publicising a statement. (I guess this point of view ocomes from my career history where I have seen that making half information public has more than once made an entire company collapse when the full story should have been benign.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that I chose to make these comments on the back of a Lance article. Just think how different the conversation would have been if someone had just launched the concept that the teams, organisers, UCI, and riders association would be well served to work closer together and present a common front publicy.... (after a number of personell changes of course )

 

[Darryl Webster]

Yes, but you have to admit that if other sports don't have to talk about their doping issues it is precisely because they have been able to place the necessary pressure to bear and have the mass media stay much out of their "internal" affairs. And this boils down to how much money they generate and make circulate.

In other words they have enough support from enough private interests to render their omertà acceptably opaque before a largely unconcerned society.

Though this is decidedly not the case with cycling, which has rather found a disobliging mass media and public. Probably because it is economically weaker, is obviously a logical candidate for mass doping practices because of its gruelingness and so made into the scapegoat "story" for a moralistic and hypocritical society. Such has impelled the UCI to ever more corrupt praxis and led to the peurile sectarian divisions (also because taking place within an international context) that literally make cycling, in addition to being the athletic activity most scrutinized publicly, the laughing stock of professional sport. To many casual observers around the globe, therefore, cycling seems like some freakish Vaudeville circus act and not the most noble of outdoor activities we know it to be.

Lance is certainly addressing all these issues, however, the problem of finding an accepted omertà, the very notion of which is repugnant because it counts on (as in other sports) a moralistic public and not one with actual morals, is fundamental to resolving all the rest, which necessarily implicates doping.

The very notion that resolving cyclings many problems, for which doping is chief among them, shoud be exclusively done internally and independently withing the sport; is a sordid casuistry that arrogantly illustrates for all who are listening with any critical intelligence exactly what Lance stands, and has always stood, for: Godfather like omertà.

His is the problem, never the solution. And it is merely a shame that all his money and sway before a stupid fan base continues to make him a protagonist within the sport, even if his athletic worth has decidely exceeded its expiration date.

Excelent post!