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

[Parrot23]

That's not love. That's infatuation. Please!

I'm explaining why some explanations based on a faith are superior and far truer than scientific ones, despite having no objective evidence. Subjective evidence can be far superior and truer than objective evidence and explanations. As BYU said, vis a wife or girlfriend, or good friend of any sort--or best, vis a stranger. Yes, far superior. The scientific explanation in this case would be laughably inadequate, and never would be real.

 

[byu123]

I think I am in need of a time machine to fast forward 4 days to the start of the TT in Monaco.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

There is no such faith as "blind faith" because if faith requires proof then it doesn't exist as a concept. You seem to misunderstand the concept.

Not at all. I didn't talk about "proof", I said "evidence".

I might have evidence that the plane I'm boarding will not fall out of the sky, but I don't have proof that it won't fall out of the sky. It's the evidence, despite the lack of proof, that provides me with the faith to board it.

Similarly, my faith in myself and my wife and our devotion to each other is based on years of evidence, but no "proof".

Believing something to be true, without evidence is "normal" as atheism is only present in the minority of humans on the planet who exist and ever have existed.

Luckily, things are finally changing, as they did with belief in a flat Earth. In some northern European countries atheists are already in the majority.

In my life, there has been plenty of evidence, but God has never come down and appeared to me. So if that is what you require, then I cannot relate a story that will fulfill your need.

I have no need to fulfill. I choose to believe only that for which I have good reason - based in verifiable evidence - to believe is true. All human scientific advancement has been made on that principle, and it works for me.

Stalin was an atheist. He was also the root of much evil.

Do we really need to go down that road? Belief in some god is the root cause of much evil (9/11, the witch hunts, the Christian crusades, Ireland to the middle east, countless old testament stories, slavery, homophobia, etc.) . The few isolated examples of atheists who did evil, like Stalin, were evil despite their atheism, not because of it.

Gotta go.

 

[Anonymous]

Ninety,
Interesting stuff, but I am logging off to spend time with someone I love who also used to be an atheist.

If you wish to continue, feel free, but it will probably be tomorrow before I revisit. Or we could just agree that within our own lives, we have the right to determine what we do and do not believe. I have no problem with your right to do so, but it appears you have a problem with mine.

Good night.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I'm explaining why some explanations based on a faith are superior and far truer than scientific ones, despite having no objective evidence. Subjective evidence can be far superior and truer than objective evidence and explanations. As BYU said, vis a wife or girlfriend, or good friend of any sort--or best, vis a stranger. Yes, far superior. The scientific explanation in this case would be laughably inadequate, and never would be real.

I presume you don't have a subscription to Science or even Psychology Today.

Now I really have to go!

 

[Parrot23]

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????

Very good. Thanks for that.

Some of the gals in the Giro were super hot this year. The one always standing to the left of Menchov was something else. Sometimes the podium gals aren't so great, but not this year.

Think Tom Sawyer would make sure he first stuck a bike pump in Lance/Bertie's spokes before attacking to take the win.

 

[Anonymous]

Not at all. I didn't talk about "proof", I said "evidence".

You are parsing words. Faith requires neither unless you do not understand the concept. Now, that is my last post.

 

[byu123]

I presume you don't have a subscription to Science or even Psychology Today.

Now I really have to go!

Still waiting on the "scintilla of evidence that you love" someone.

 

[Parrot23]

I presume you don't have a subscription to Science or even Psychology Today.

Now I really have to go!

So do I.

I said SOME things are better explained subjectively or by faith where the "scientific" explanation would be inadequate, including your relationship with your wife. Intangibles and subtleties can't be explained here by science. But they are true!

But on macro things, see my earlier post that was missed about math fitting reality exactly (granular, whereas it should all be a fudge, but it isn't).

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You are parsing words. Faith requires neither unless you do not understand the concept. Now, that is my last post.

There are two kinds of faith. The kind of faith that relies on evidence (but not necessarily proof), like the faith one has in the faithfulness of their mate, or the faith one has in a plane not falling out of the sky, or a bridge or building not collapsing, and then there is "blind faith". Blind faith is the problematic one. Blind faith provided the rationale for the 9/11 attacks, for example.

 

[Anonymous]

There are two kinds of faith. The kind of faith that relies on evidence (but not necessarily proof), like the faith one has in the faithfulness of their mate, or the faith one has in a plane not falling out of the sky, or a bridge or building not collapsing, and then there is "blind faith". Blind faith is the problematic one. Blind faith provided the rationale for the 9/11 attacks, for example.

You cannot have absolute evidence or absolute proof that your plane will not fall out of the sky. There is only faith.

 

[Captain Kirk]

You really, really dont have a clue, I am betting the majority of posters on here started out as Lance fans and morphed into haters or dissenters. I will give you a personal breakdown of how I went from fan to foe and I am sure most are pretty similar.

My own awareness of Lance goes back to 1990 when he competed in the Worlds Amateur race in Japan. I then followed his progress through the pages of Winning magazine(in which he had a column thru 1993), I remember him winning races your average Lance fan dont know jack about.

He was definitely the up and coming English speaking superstar and I was a big fan, he was good from the moment he turned pro, winning USPROS, TDF stage and Worlds in his first full season, everyone including fellow pros thought he would be king of the classics, not a Tour winner. His career never took of the way many expected however, even in 1996, he admitted to the late Rich Carlson(Winning) he would never be a Tour contender.

When he came back from cancer to win the Tour, I was as happy as anybody but I was really surprised how he dominated in mountains especially. The Festina affair had happened in 1998 so long term fans were no longer innocent lambs to what happened in pro cycling. I gave Lance the benefit of doubt and believed all the theories, weight loss etc, and kinda ignored the incident with Bassons.

I bought a Trek bike, US Postal jersey, raincape etc so definitely not anti-Lance. On all the allegations, I observed proceedings but witheld judgement. The Ferrai connection was a big question mark however, I knew of Ferrari being a doping doctor as far back as 93. As time progressed and doping was still obviously widespread in cycling, I wanted Lance as the top guy to take a firm stance but he just buried his head. This frustrated me as did his continuing dominace of the Tour, it was becoming boring and predictable, I think this is natural in sport when one team or person dominates totally.

Then the spat with Simeoni in 04 finally put me into the anti-Lance camp, how could he do that to a guy who was helping to bring down the most famous doping linked doctor in cycling. His attitude was so wrong I was so happy he retired and then the 99 retested samples. I wasnt surprised but didnt get into it too much, I was just happy he was gone. What happened in the intervening years with Puerto, ex-teammates getting busted, all the little stories, it only confirmed what had been obvious to most longtime fans.

Disgusted when he announced his comeback as I knew it would be all about Lance again and it has, I know I am being hypocritical now but imagine how much better this forum would be if there was no Lance around, without all these Lance threads. Cycling does not need Lance, US cycling might but we were managing just fine without him.

My dislike of Lance is not based on some irrational jealousy, its based on over 20 years of observation in detail of cycling and using my logic to workout what is going on in the sport. I never needed anybody else to influence me on the Lance issue, he done it himself.

When you actually know something about cycling, then try and lecture us. I dont go on football sites and try to pass myself of as intelligble by saying Tom Brady is the greatest ever QB. Stick to what you know, and just watch as people recount similar stories on their own passage from Lance fan to hater.

Apologies for the length of this but needed to get it out.

Word Perfect.
Wow this is great therapy session.
The penny really dropped for me when one after another his old right hand men started getting caught - and those Posties used inspire me by themselves...a downward spiral from there on in.

When he retired, it was a relief, it was time to move on....and all the time I asked how did it come this ?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Word Perfect.
Wow this is great therapy session.
The penny really dropped for me when one after another his old right hand men started getting caught - and those Posties used inspire me by themselves...a downward spiral from there on in.

When he retired, it was a relief, it was time to move on....and all the time I asked how did it come this ?

Okay, fair enough, but why focus on Lance? Why hate him in particular? If what you say and quote is all true, then the entire sport is infested with doping (and I believe it is). All Lance did was play the game better than the others.

Was the sport really better with him gone, given all the other fiascos since then (Hamilton, Flandis, Vino, Ullrich, Basso, etc. etc.)? Does anyone remember who even won last year, much less got 2nd or 3rd? Interest in the sport -- and not only in the U.S. -- is much higher now that he is back. And he is no where near as likely to win as he was in those old "boring" days - so what's your beef now?

And what is this "hate" all about anyway? I don't know or care whether he would make a good friend or not. The dude is entertaining as all get out. He is the Michael Jackson of cycling -- the King of Pop Cycling if you will. Armstrong is as good for cycling and the cycling industry as Jackson was for music and the music industry.

 

[byu123]

Interest in the sport -- and not only in the U.S. -- is much higher now that he is back. And he is no where near as likely to win as he was in those old "boring" days - so what's your beef now?

I totally agree. I have watched Tour every year of past 10 years but last year seemed very bland. Maybe if they had let Andy Schlek take more of a leader role it might have been better. Cadel had no team and Sastre seemed to be dragged up the mountains by the Schleks.

I don't think Armstrong is most likely to win . . . but he might . . . which makes the interest and drama higher than any other year. Love him or hate him, Armstrong's return has brought much more drama and panache to Tour than it has had in years, including the last 2-3 years he won when it seemed like a foregone conclusion even before the start. All that and then throw in Ventoux on the 2nd to last day . . . . I'm already regretting the let down the Tour in 2010 will have to the drama of this year.

Most people have no idea the level of detail and very narrow margin of error when it comes to getting accurate biological sampling. As stated before, the six year old samples put to the test by a bias doctor according to no established protocols does overcome the presumption of being clean established by the no positive result according to established standards (WADA, UCI, ASO,etc.). Moreover, the motive for the French to tamper with the samples after Armstrong's retirement and winning 7 TDFs is simply off the charts.

 

[Anonymous]

Luckily, things are finally changing, as they did with belief in a flat Earth. In some northern European countries atheists are already in the majority.

The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You cannot have absolute evidence or absolute proof that your plane will not fall out of the sky. There is only faith.

Right, you can't have absolute evidence that the plane won't fall out of the sky, but you do have enough evidence to make it so reasonably unlikely to fall out of the sky that it warrants enough faith to get on the plane. That's not blind faith. That's reasoned faith. Very different.

There is no such evidence whatsoever about the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ghosts, witches, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Apollo, Cupid, or any god. So "faith" in the existence of any supernatural being is a very different kind of faith; it is blind faith. It is belief in something being true despite the absence of any evidence whatsoever of it being true. And that is the kind of faith that drives women to drown their children, and men to start wars and fly airplanes into buildings.

One cannot condemn the blind faith beliefs of the 9/11 terrorists - the motivation of their evil actions - without also condemning the type of blind faith belief you and others are espousing here. For in the context of reason, logic and evidence, these blind faiths are indistinguishable. In that context, they are one and the same. It just so happens that sometimes they lead to evil actions (like 9/11, drowning children, starting wars, or killing abortion doctors). The underlying problem is blind faith -- faith not supported by objectively verifiable evidence -- whether it leads to evil behavior or not.

 

[byu123]

Right, you can't have absolute evidence that the plane won't fall out of the sky, but you do have enough evidence to make it so reasonably unlikely to fall out of the sky that it warrants enough faith to get on the plane. That's not blind faith. That's reasoned faith. Very different.

There is no such evidence whatsoever about the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ghosts, witches, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Apollo, Cupid, or any god. So "faith" in the existence of any supernatural being is a very different kind of faith; it is blind faith. It is belief in something being true despite the absence of any evidence whatsoever of it being true. And that is the kind of faith that drives women to drown their children, and men to start wars and fly airplanes into buildings.

One cannot condemn the blind faith beliefs of the 9/11 terrorists - the motivation of their evil actions - without also condemning the type of blind faith belief you and others are espousing here. For in the context of reason, logic and evidence, these blind faiths are indistinguishable. In that context, they are one and the same. It just so happens that sometimes they lead to evil actions (like 9/11, drowning children, starting wars, or killing abortion doctors). The underlying problem is blind faith -- faith not supported by objectively verifiable evidence -- whether it leads to evil behavior or not.

COME ON GUYS! WE WERE JUST STARTING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT CYCLING.

I totally agree with TTF on the faith issue and think he is dead wrong on cycling.

I totally agree with 95rpm on the cycling issues and think he is dead wrong on faith . . . .

Lets discuss cycling.

 

[BikeCentric]

The Pope says that you are all going to burn in Hell for all eternity if you don't start talking about cycling again (and get baptized Catholic).

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

I don't know why you keep saying this as if it is relevant. A few hundred years ago our conversation could have been this:

95: The earth is round.
Thought: The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

or:

95: The earth revolves around the sun.
Thought: The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

or:

95: Man and ape descended from a common ancestor.
Thought: The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest I am wrong? So what? What's your point? The entirety of human anthropology and written history has been wrong about a lot of stuff, and the consensus today is that it has even been wrong about the myriads of conceptions of supernatural beings that humans have believed in throughout history. I have no reason to believe that a few hundred years from now, if not a few decades from now, the prevalent "spiritual" ideas thought today to be "Truth" will be seen as preposterous as, well, the Swedes (over 75% atheist) and Estonians (over 80%) already view them to be.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The Pope says that you are all going to burn in Hell for all eternity if you don't start talking about cycling again (and get baptized Catholic).

+1. Okay, okay! Sorry!

 

[byu123]

Have a serious question which I am curious to know the board's thoughts on.

Who and What . . . is the feasible case for a "Dark Horse" winner this year???

Assume Contador, Armstrong, Cadel, Sastre . . . . 1) don't seriously bonk and 2) don't crash out.

Is there a realistic case for another to just be better and win? Thoughts on potential "Dark Horse" candidates are Andy Schlek and Menchov. No one is talking their name as likely GC winner.

What is the scenario that sees a "Dark Horse" winning without one of the favorites have unforeseen crash/bonk? Who are the likeliest Dark Horses?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I totally agree with 95rpm on the cycling issues and think he is dead wrong on faith . . . .

Really? I'm almost as certain that Armstrong has doped, at least using homologous blood doping, for his entire tdf career, as I'm about there being no gods, and for essentially the same reason - any plausible alternative explanation seems preposterous.

 

[Anonymous]

Right, you can't have absolute evidence that the plane won't fall out of the sky, but you do have enough evidence to make it so reasonably unlikely to fall out of the sky that it warrants enough faith to get on the plane. That's not blind faith. That's reasoned faith. Very different.

There is no such evidence whatsoever about the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ghosts, witches, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Apollo, Cupid, or any god. So "faith" in the existence of any supernatural being is a very different kind of faith; it is blind faith. It is belief in something being true despite the absence of any evidence whatsoever of it being true. And that is the kind of faith that drives women to drown their children, and men to start wars and fly airplanes into buildings.

One cannot condemn the blind faith beliefs of the 9/11 terrorists - the motivation of their evil actions - without also condemning the type of blind faith belief you and others are espousing here. For in the context of reason, logic and evidence, these blind faiths are indistinguishable. In that context, they are one and the same. It just so happens that sometimes they lead to evil actions (like 9/11, drowning children, starting wars, or killing abortion doctors). The underlying problem is blind faith -- faith not supported by objectively verifiable evidence -- whether it leads to evil behavior or not.

Sure you can, you just don't.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know why you keep saying this as if it is relevant. A few hundred years ago our conversation could have been this:

95: The earth is round.
Thought: The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

or:

95: The earth revolves around the sun.
Thought: The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

or:

95: Man and ape descended from a common ancestor.
Thought: The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest you are wrong.

The entirety of human anthropology and written history suggest I am wrong? So what? What's your point? The entirety of human anthropology and written history has been wrong about a lot of stuff, and the consensus today is that it has even been wrong about the myriads of conceptions of supernatural beings that humans have believed in throughout history. I have no reason to believe that a few hundred years from now, if not a few decades from now, the prevalent "spiritual" ideas thought today to be "Truth" will be seen as preposterous as, well, the Swedes (over 75% atheist) and Estonians (over 80%) already view them to be.

Again, using numbers as the only basis for quantification and therefore the only real tool for proof of anything, you are still far in the minority and to suggest that atheism will ever be anything but a minority is ignorant of human anthropology and written human history. That is just a fact.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Have a serious question which I am curious to know the board's thoughts on.

Who and What . . . is the feasible case for a "Dark Horse" winner this year???

Assume Contador, Armstrong, Cadel, Sastre . . . . 1) don't seriously bonk and 2) don't crash out.

Is there a realistic case for another to just be better and win? Thoughts on potential "Dark Horse" candidates are Andy Schlek and Menchov. No one is talking their name as likely GC winner.

What is the scenario that sees a "Dark Horse" winning without one of the favorites have unforeseen crash/bonk? Who are the likeliest Dark Horses?

Going really dark:

Van de Velde
Levi
Kirchen
Zubeldia
Kloden
Mick Rogers
Schleck (either one)
Pellizotti