Armstrong wins because he trains harder/smarter . . . not doping

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Susan Westemeyer said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is not a place for discussions about religion. Let's keep the focus on cycling, please.

Susan
Can we have an "any topic goes" area to take these tangents for those who are interested?
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Perfect.

I contend there is no way to distinguish the essence of what you're saying here form the essence of what the 9/11 terrorists believed. Therefore, to condemn one, you must condemn the other, and for the same identical reasons.

In order to accept and respect your "personal" beliefs in the existence of a supernatural being who communicates with you, I have to accept and respect the "personal" beliefs of the 9/11 terrorists in the existence of the supernatural being that communicates with them. I can't do the latter, so I can't do the former.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just explaining why I can't accept or respect what you believe about the supernatural, any more than you accept or respect (presumably - correct me if I'm wrong) what the 9/11 terrorists believed about the supernatural. It's all foolish, irrational, and potentially extremely dangerous and harmful to humanity. Therefore, it's immoral.
Your comparing apples and oranges. You seem more intelligent than to try and pass off such a blatantly false analogy as credible.

Christianity:
In the New Testament of the Bible, Jesus was presented with a woman who had committed adultery. The publicans wanted Christ to condemn her and suggested the standard punishment of stoning be meted out (according to Mosaic/Jewish law). Christ looked at the group and asked . . . "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" . . . they all went away with sheepish guilt knowing the hypocrisy Christ had pointed out. The Savior turned to the woman and said . . . go thy way and sin no more.

Islam:
In the Koran, the prophet Mohammed was presented with a woman who had committed adultry and become pregnant. The elders presented her to the Prophet Mohammed and asked what should be done. Mohammed instructed that they woman should go back to her home and be brought back once the baby was born and was six months old. At the apponited time, after the birth of the child, the woman was brought back and at the Prophet Mohammed's instruction . . . buried to up to her neck in the ground and stoned to death.

Both factually accurate examples of what I believe and what the 9/11 hijackers believed. Sure we both had a form of faith . . . but very different forms as represented by these real, nearly analogous factual situations, producing opposite results. (See, http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Terrorism-Teaches-Christianity-Violence/dp/0884198847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246428880&sr=8-1)

I was heavily involved in the 9/11 investigation, was interviewed by the 9/11 committee, had my work cited in the 9/11 commission report, and have had the results of my investigative work on terrorism matters be the subject of classified presidential daily briefs to the President of the United States in 2002.

I have read the book in the link "Terrorism and Islam: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence, and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad." Moreover, I have listened to the author speak at the FBI academy just months after 9/11. The author graduated from the top Islamic institution in the world Azar Univ. in Cairo, Egypt. He was a protege of the "Blind SheiK" Omar Abel Rahman, the mastermind of the 1st world trade towers bombing. He memorized the Quran at age 14 and was one of the top up and coming "Imams" in Islam. He then converted to Christianity and had to flee his family which tried to kill him. He more than anyone knows the stark difference between Christianity and Islam.

I spoke at length with him after hearing him speak at the FBI academy and read his book.

I assure you 95rpm . . . I know for a certain irrefutable fact . . . that when you attempt to equate modern Christianity with what the 9/11 terrorists believe you are grossly misinformed or more likely you know it not to be true but it advances your mantra that Christianity is evil and bad so you throw it out with the hope that ignorant hearers of such tripe will believe it.

Sorry to say my friend. I am not one of them. I know, . . . and I really know that you know as well, that on this . . . you are dead wrong.
 
byu123 said:
Your comparing apples and oranges. You seem more intelligent than to try and pass off such a blatantly false analogy as credible.

Christianity:
In the New Testament of the Bible, Jesus was presented with a woman who had committed adultery. The publicans wanted Christ to condemn her and suggested the standard punishment of stoning be meted out (according to Mosaic/Jewish law). Christ looked at the group and asked . . . "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" . . . they all went away with sheepish guilt knowing the hypocrisy Christ had pointed out. The Savior turned to the woman and said . . . go thy way and sin no more.

Islam:
In the Koran, the prophet Mohammed was presented with a woman who had committed adultry and become pregnant. The elders presented her to the Prophet Mohammed and asked what should be done. Mohammed instructed that they woman should go back to her home and be brought back once the baby was born and was six months old. At the apponited time, after the birth of the child, the woman was brought back and at the Prophet Mohammed's instruction . . . buried to up to her neck in the ground and stoned to death.

Both factually accurate examples of what I believe and what the 9/11 hijackers believed. Sure we both had a form of faith . . . but very different forms as represented by these real, nearly analogous factual situations, producing opposite results. (See, http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Terrorism-Teaches-Christianity-Violence/dp/0884198847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246428880&sr=8-1)

I was heavily involved in the 9/11 investigation, was interviewed by the 9/11 committee, had my work cited in the 9/11 commission report, and have had the results of my investigative work on terrorism matters be the subject of classified presidential daily briefs to the President of the United States in 2002.

I have read the book in the link "Terrorism and Islam: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence, and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad." Moreover, I have listened to the author speak at the FBI academy just months after 9/11. The author graduated from the top Islamic institution in the world Azar Univ. in Cairo, Egypt. He was a protege of the "Blind SheiK" Omar Abel Rahman, the mastermind of the 1st world trade towers bombing. He memorized the Quran at age 14 and was one of the top up and coming "Imams" in Islam. He then converted to Christianity and had to flee his family which tried to kill him. He more than anyone knows the stark difference between Christianity and Islam.

I spoke at length with him after hearing him speak at the FBI academy and read his book.

I assure you 95rpm . . . I know for a certain irrefutable fact . . . that when you attempt to equate modern Christianity with what the 9/11 terrorists believe you are grossly misinformed or more likely you know it not to be true but it advances your mantra that Christianity is evil and bad so you throw it out with the hope that ignorant hearers of such tripe will believe it.

Sorry to say my friend. I am not one of them. I know, . . . and I really know that you know as well, that on this . . . you are dead wrong.
Got a real nutter here. Can't BroDeal step up to the plate with this one and with his usual theraputic irony help us all get back to the cycling debate?
 
This is the messiest, ugliest, most pointless thread in the short history of this forum. Plus it now has absolutely nothing to do with the original point anyone was trying to bring up. And nothing to do with cycling. :mad:

This thread should be locked so no one can post anymore on it, and let it slowly fade away. Or just wipe it.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Worried to see the religious debate on this site.

It's irritating enough having to deal with those who have a fanatical belief in the integrity of some cyclists and Directeur Sportifs yet alone people who think the world is only 4,000 years old and all the animals in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
This is the messiest, ugliest, most pointless thread in the short history of this forum. Plus it now has absolutely nothing to do with the original point anyone was trying to bring up. And nothing to do with cycling. :mad:

This thread should be locked so no one can post anymore on it, and let it slowly fade away. Or just wipe it.
Hold on a minute there Alpe Mongol is right, the faith issue was brought up in regards to naive cycling fans believing in the fairytails told by their heros as a harmful problem in regards to exposing the cancer of doping which is killing the sport.

That someone brought their religious beliefs into the discussion, for God knows what reason (I am being ironic here), is their problem and not ours who would simply like to see the same blind faith being used as an alibi uprooted, so we can really begin to look more objectivelly and rationally at this serious issue. Because until the myths prevail, there is no reason to hope anything is ever going to change.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
One thing I am eternally grateful for is that LA is not an outspoken evangelical Christian.

Can you imagine the type of fanboys we would be dealing with if that was the case?
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
From CyclingWeekly:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/380821/the-wednesday-comment.html

LANCE RETURNS TO FRANCE
Lance Armstrong returns to the Tour de France this weekend for the first time since he stood on the podium in Paris in 2005, seventh title in hand and said: “to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics, I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.”

Of Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso, who shared the podium with him, Armstrong said: “You should believe in these athletes and you should believe in these people. There are no secrets – this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it.”

With less than a week to go until the start of the Tour de France, the promotional videos have hit the internet.

One, for Nike, I find particularly offensive. It appears to be suggesting that to question Armstrong’s legacy, to investigate his conduct, to speculate on his motivations and assess his performances is in some way an affront to cancer sufferers.

The Nike video can be seen here: http://www.nike.com/nikeos/p/nike/en_US/

Over pictures of people who are clearly cancer sufferers, black and white shots of hospitals, and images of Armstrong in his Livestrong kit, he says: “The critics say I’m arrogant. A doper. I’m washed up. A fraud. That I couldn’t let it go. They can say whatever they want. I’m not back on my bike for them.”

It’s not exactly a subtle message and it seems to be saying: If you’re against Armstrong you must be pro-cancer.

Well, I’m not pro-cancer at all. But I am also not in favour of a sporting event – or an entire sport come to that – becoming a single issue campaign for a man with a mounting stack of grudges.

Cycling seems to have become all about cancer. Well, cycling is not about cancer. Yellow, the colour of the Tour de France’s maillot jaune, has been hijacked by Livestrong.

I’d like Armstrong to explain how the words that voice over the Nike ad do anything to draw attention to the plight of cancer sufferers. If Armstrong truly didn’t care about the critics, he wouldn’t have mentioned them in his video.

If he really didn’t care about the critics, he’d have made a positive, upbeat video all about how he was coming back to the Tour de France to encourage and inspire, rather than score points and convince his already convinced army of acolytes.

But no. It’s about divide and conquer, fool some of the people all of the time and paint the rest as freaks and oddballs with imagined agendas and made-up conspiracies.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that. There are still some enormous questions to be answered.

I’d respect Armstrong if he kept his charity – Livestrong – and his for-profit work a lot more separate. Or perhaps you can tell when you’re on his charity website and when you’re not.

I’d respect him if he in turn respected the race and its competitors instead of branding the 2008 edition a joke.

If Armstrong thinks that a good 2009 Tour de France will answer all the questions about the 1999-2005 era he’s mistaken. It’ll take a lot more than a slick video and pithy script.

For all his dislike of cynics, I’ve not seen a more cynical promotional video than the one served up this week.
 
I believe in God, and have studied theology off and on for most of my adult life (I'm almost 50).

I have been around cycling for about 25 years, on several levels. As an amateur racer (not very good) and a little as a coach. I have studied the sport almost as much as anyone here perhaps.

I am not naive. Not about God. Not about cycling.

But what I definitely am not, is naive enough to think this is the place for my thoughts on God.

And that is why this tread has become pointless and IMO should be locked. And this will be my last post in it.

it seems to be saying: If you’re against Armstrong you must be pro-cancer.
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
 
The most rediculous thing about that Nike add, is when he says "I'm not on my bike for them."

Now why should he care about us and about what we think? Wasn't he supposed to be doing this for the cancer community? Or is it that he just can't stand to not be universally loved. Why make the statement? I just don't get it. Or maybe I do...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I apologize for the talk of religion. I didn't start the discussion, but I sure helped facilitate its growth.

Religion or lack thereof is a personal thing and it is something nobody really enjoys a discussion of in places where it isn't appropriate, and this is just such a place. I will refrain from any further discussion.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Holy :eek: , when I left this topic to go bed we were on page 9!

I think TFF's last comment is the right way to close off the night's, er, diversion into other realms. ;)
 
whiteboytrash said:
From CyclingWeekly:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/380821/the-wednesday-comment.html

LANCE RETURNS TO FRANCE
Lance Armstrong returns to the Tour de France this weekend for the first time since he stood on the podium in Paris in 2005, seventh title in hand and said: “to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics, I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.”

Of Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso, who shared the podium with him, Armstrong said: “You should believe in these athletes and you should believe in these people. There are no secrets – this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it.”

With less than a week to go until the start of the Tour de France, the promotional videos have hit the internet.

One, for Nike, I find particularly offensive. It appears to be suggesting that to question Armstrong’s legacy, to investigate his conduct, to speculate on his motivations and assess his performances is in some way an affront to cancer sufferers.

The Nike video can be seen here: http://www.nike.com/nikeos/p/nike/en_US/

Over pictures of people who are clearly cancer sufferers, black and white shots of hospitals, and images of Armstrong in his Livestrong kit, he says: “The critics say I’m arrogant. A doper. I’m washed up. A fraud. That I couldn’t let it go. They can say whatever they want. I’m not back on my bike for them.”

It’s not exactly a subtle message and it seems to be saying: If you’re against Armstrong you must be pro-cancer.

Well, I’m not pro-cancer at all. But I am also not in favour of a sporting event – or an entire sport come to that – becoming a single issue campaign for a man with a mounting stack of grudges.

Cycling seems to have become all about cancer. Well, cycling is not about cancer. Yellow, the colour of the Tour de France’s maillot jaune, has been hijacked by Livestrong.

I’d like Armstrong to explain how the words that voice over the Nike ad do anything to draw attention to the plight of cancer sufferers. If Armstrong truly didn’t care about the critics, he wouldn’t have mentioned them in his video.

If he really didn’t care about the critics, he’d have made a positive, upbeat video all about how he was coming back to the Tour de France to encourage and inspire, rather than score points and convince his already convinced army of acolytes.

But no. It’s about divide and conquer, fool some of the people all of the time and paint the rest as freaks and oddballs with imagined agendas and made-up conspiracies.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that. There are still some enormous questions to be answered.

I’d respect Armstrong if he kept his charity – Livestrong – and his for-profit work a lot more separate. Or perhaps you can tell when you’re on his charity website and when you’re not.

I’d respect him if he in turn respected the race and its competitors instead of branding the 2008 edition a joke.

If Armstrong thinks that a good 2009 Tour de France will answer all the questions about the 1999-2005 era he’s mistaken. It’ll take a lot more than a slick video and pithy script.

For all his dislike of cynics, I’ve not seen a more cynical promotional video than the one served up this week.
Methinks you expect too much from a mere birider. Everybody has his strengths and weaknesses, and Lance Armstrong is no exception. What makes him unique is that his particular set of strengths and weaknesses, including those highlighted in this ad, make him a fascinating and highly entertaining figure.

As to the calls for closing this thread, that discussion is over, except for your calls to close this thread... :rolleyes:
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
From CyclingWeekly:


Over pictures of people who are clearly cancer sufferers, black and white shots of hospitals, and images of Armstrong in his Livestrong kit, he says: “The critics say I’m arrogant. A doper. I’m washed up. A fraud. That I couldn’t let it go. They can say whatever they want. I’m not back on my bike for them.”
In the same vein, I'd respect Lance a lot more if he announced that every penny of income he receives this year (from race appearances, and more importantly, Nike/Trek endorsement deals) is going to go to his charity. That might put a little more honesty into his "I'm riding for them" message.
 
whiteboytrash said:
One, for Nike, I find particularly offensive. It appears to be suggesting that to question Armstrong’s legacy, to investigate his conduct, to speculate on his motivations and assess his performances is in some way an affront to cancer sufferers.

The Nike video can be seen here: http://www.nike.com/nikeos/p/nike/en_US/

Over pictures of people who are clearly cancer sufferers, black and white shots of hospitals, and images of Armstrong in his Livestrong kit, he says: “The critics say I’m arrogant. A doper. I’m washed up. A fraud. That I couldn’t let it go. They can say whatever they want. I’m not back on my bike for them.”

It’s not exactly a subtle message and it seems to be saying: If you’re against Armstrong you must be pro-cancer.

Well, I’m not pro-cancer at all. But I am also not in favour of a sporting event – or an entire sport come to that – becoming a single issue campaign for a man with a mounting stack of grudges.
You missed his point, which is that, for better or worse, Lance Armstong is a HUGE inspiration for cancer victims, and Comeback II is a huge inspiration. The subtlety is that all the cynical talk about him, justified or not, does take away from that.

Complaining about pro cyclists doping is like complaining about actors using makeup.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
You missed his point, which is that, for better or worse, Lance Armstong is a HUGE inspiration for cancer victims, and Comeback II is a huge inspiration. The subtlety is that all the cynical talk about him, justified or not, does take away from that.

Complaining about pro cyclists doping is like complaining about actors using makeup.
So what if he's an inspiration? Inspiration doesn't cure cancer. And if, to the contrary, Armstrong were unmasked and his cynicism was exposed, not one cancer patient would die from that, just like not one cancer patient would ever be cured by the inspiration he has recieved from Lance. To believe so would mean that you believe in miraculous healers.

Now don't anyone dare start up that nonesensical religious debate again.

I think what's most important here is the principle of transparency. We expect it of our public officials, for the privlidges they enjoy given the power over society they have been democratically granted, just as we do from our athletes whose talents have allowed them (and because we support their corporate sponsors by watching them on TV) to earn 1000 times what most of us will ever. So it's all about transparency, which doesn't exist here. Not to fight for a fraud to be exposed, even at the supposed expense of the cancer community (which for me is a false supposition anyway): means that we all accept to be vasals in the new corporate Middle Ages and have not merited the democratic societies we enjoy and for which past generations faught so hard for us to obtain. Transparancy is the key. Everything else is just propaganda or vapid ideology
 
rhubroma said:
So what if he's an inspiration? Inspiration doesn't cure cancer.
Studies done about the effect of positive thinking and even placebos on cancer patients indicate otherwise. I doubt any studies have been done on specifically measuring the effect of Armstrong inspiration, but I know too many inspired cancer patients to believe it's negligible.

rhubroma said:
And if, to the contrary, Armstrong were unmasked and his cynicism was exposed, not one cancer patient would die from that, just like not one cancer patient would ever be cured by the inspiration he has recieved from Lance. To believe so would mean that you believe in miraculous healers.
Miraculous healing is one thing. Inspired by Armstrong to find out everything possible about your disease, to not blindly trust your doctors, to get second, third, etc., opinions, to explore all your options, to grit your teeth and look ahead through all the gruesome treatments, is quite another.

The positive and ultimately healing effect of the inspiration that Armstrong has undoubtedly instilled in hundreds if not thousands of cancer patients might be difficult to measure, but I'm convinced it's very real. (edit: see also this post).

Finally, the average cancer patient is not a hardcore pro cycling fan. He or she does not understand, as we do, that doping, and denying the doping, is a necessary aspect of the sport.

Among the several different messages that Armstrong is delivering in this amazing piece, at all different levels, is this one: You know better. You know I dope. You know I know I dope. You know I have to deny that I dope. You should also know that my story and image is a huge inspiration to countless cancer patients, and that has a real and positive effect on their potential outcomes. You know that exposing the prevalence of doping within the sport, even more than it already has been, is not good for the sport, and certainly not good for the ability of my image to continue to inspire as effectively, especially if I personally am the target. You know better. Let. It. Go..

rhubroma said:
I think what's most important here is the principle of transparency. We expect it of our public officials, for the privlidges they enjoy given the power over society they have been democratically granted, just as we do from our athletes whose talents have allowed them (and because we support their corporate sponsors by watching them on TV) to earn 1000 times what most of us will ever. So it's all about transparency, which doesn't exist here. Not to fight for a fraud to be exposed, even at the supposed expense of the cancer community (which for me is a false supposition anyway): means that we all accept to be vasals in the new corporate Middle Ages and have not merited the democratic societies we enjoy and for which past generations faught so hard for us to obtain. Transparancy is the key. Everything else is just propaganda or vapid ideology
Please don't conflate the need for transparency with respect to serious political issues with a need for transparency in sports entertainment. Most sports do just fine with far less transparency than cycling has - the last thing cycling needs is more transparency.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
This is the messiest, ugliest, most pointless thread in the short history of this forum. Plus it now has absolutely nothing to do with the original point anyone was trying to bring up. And nothing to do with cycling. :mad:

This thread should be locked so no one can post anymore on it, and let it slowly fade away. Or just wipe it.
byu123 said:
Well said . . . now gentelmen . . . coming full circle . . . and in an attempt to save a fairly decent threat . . . didn't Tom Sawyer ride a bike? And if he had lived in 2008, trained with Contador and/or Armstrong and engaged in autologous blood doping but not EPO, Could Tom Sawyer win stage 20 up Mt. Ventoux???? And is the girl with "pig tails" which Tom had the crush on hot enough to be a podium girl in this years Tour????
byu123 said:
I think I am in need of a time machine to fast forward 4 days to the start of the TT in Monaco.
I tried . . . to get back to cycling . . . before I felt compelled to reply to blatantly inane and bigoted zingers.

FYI . . . If you want to engage in "faith", "religion", or any other non-cycling related b!tch session with someone . . . use the private message function and take it off line. Yes . . . I was guilty of engaging as well but I have now "repented" (no pun intended). Lets stick to cycling . . . instead of intractable philiosophical disagreements which go back 1000s of years.

ON THE C Y C L I N G FRONT . . . looks like Astana has done the TTT course twice in as many days. Word is it is very technical and not prone to favor the usual rolleur type of riding . . . .

On the TTT . . . one question for professionals here. Rules say that 5 must cross the line. How do you balance keeping as much of the 9 member team together for as long as possible for collective effort pulling etc. vis a vis just having the strongest 5 drop the rest and go for broke?
 
May 2, 2009
27
1
0
byu123 said:
A doper dopes because he is too weak or lazy to train and do what it takes to win without doping. Kohl and Jascke are worthless slugs. Fact of the matter is if you train at altitude for extended periods of time you can naturally alter your red blood cell count and gain a competitive advantage in high cardio/VO2 max athletic events as a result.

Those to lazy to spend the month of June at 8000 to 12000 feet training for 5-6 hours a day . . . dope. Those dedicated and tough enough to handle such training suck it up, do it, and have the physical ability to win without doping . . . a la Lance Armstrong. Its really very simple. Armstrong doesn't dope because he trains harder and smarter than anyone else and won 7 TDFs as a result. The lazy slugs who can't take such a regime cheat and dope in an effort to compete with the likes of Armstrong.
Exactly!!!!!!

"What am I on? I'm on my bike!!! 6 hours a day!"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Wolfpengap said:
Exactly!!!!!!

"What am I on? I'm on my bike!!! 6 hours a day and using PED's to train like an animal!"
There, fixed that for you.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Wolfpengap said:
Exactly!!!!!!

"What am I on? I'm on my bike!!! 6 hours a day!"
I agree COMPLETELY . . . I think most have no idea the amount of time and pain Armstrong puts in on a bike. They dismiss it as . . . yea they all do the same. I don't think they do . . . . Its easy to simply not accept that your opponent works harder, suffers more, and is more dedicated than you and that the only reason they win is because they dope. I have been in competitive sports long enough to know that, even at the top, there often arises an athelete which just has more drive/determiniation than his peers.

I simply think, after genetics, Armstrong makes sacrifices in time, training, and pain that most just arently willing to make and thats what makes him a great . . . .
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts