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

[Anonymous]

Ultimately, the driving force for everyone is selfishness (e.g., some are "good" because they look forward to reward in the afterlife). Narcissists simply don't have a genuine personal interest in others - but the interest in others that non-narcissists have is still selfish. My love for my family and friends, for example, is quite selfish.

I don't mean to speak for Armstrong - obviously I can't. But I do believe he would say something like what I wrote, except of course he can't since he can't admit to the doping. But you already know that.

The thing is, Armstrong is human, and the cancer, recovery and 7 Tour wins were all real. He really did experience all that, and, that put him in a position to connect with other cancer patients. Whether that connection is authentic, I don't know or care (and for the life of me I cannot comprehend why it seems to matter so much to you). What matters is that the connection is real to hundreds if not thousands of cancer patients. Maybe Lance is taking advantage of that for his own benefit. Fine, so what? The connection and inspiration is still real for the patients. It's a good thing, no matter what his motivations are. I cannot, however, see any redeeming value in the campaign to knock him down.

You said you disagree with the other thing. To clarify... so you disagree with me when I say it's important to not conflate the two very different kinds of faith? You think it's fine to conflate them, to not distinguish? Just want to make sure I understand what you're saying...

As to the suggestions that I'm Flandis or Arnie Baker... ROTFLOL! I don't think either would refer to Floyd as "Flandis", by the way.

I won't get into motivation in regards to love because we will probably disagree.

However from the highlighted text, you may be right. I don't think so as I know the effects a narcissist has on the lives of others first hand. However, I do not know him personally. I am merely presenting my opinion of him.

As to the underlined text, I do not believe the character of faith is multi-faceted. I just don't. You believe that "objective" and "verifiable" are absolute terms and I do not philosophically believe that to be the case.

 

[Anonymous]

Ninety5rpm,
I respect what you are saying and would never try to tell you what your relationship with a God or the idea of a God should be. You have lived your life and I am not your judge. I don't agree with some of your assertions, but so what? I don't agree with a lot of things. I don't believe in forced evangelism. I believe that if someone wants to know what my story is, I will tell them what I have seen. If someone wants to question me about my beliefs in an effort to prove to me I am wrong, I will deny that evangelism to them because I didn't ask them to do so and that applies to evangelical Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists. I don't say this to be prickly, but I don't go to people I don't know very well about questions such as this. I have people in my life who's judgment I trust and who I have known for many years. I struggle with my faith, I think anyone who looks at the reality around them has to. But I cannot deny the reality of what has happened in my life, and you certainly will not be able to persuade me regarding those things. So lets just shake hands and you live your life and I will live mine.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

One question?
Why are you prepared to seperate one groups action from there belief system and not anothers?

Bad people do bad things! Yes I agree that bad things have been done in the name of religion, but all to often if you look below the surface religion was simply used as a veil to hide some other agenda, or beause of the extremely close links between church and state.

Hmm, this one is going to be difficult to tie in with cycling. I can answer via PM, except that since you asked perhaps others are wondering the same thing. We really need a "tangent forum"... in the mean time I'll field this one here, and defend doing so obliquely by contending that a certain 7 time Tour winner would probably agree with the following...

The reason I separate one group's evil actions from their belief system and not another's is because in one group the stated and known reasons for doing the evil things in question is their belief system. You can discount some of the cases in which a religious justification was used as an excuse for something they wanted to do anyway, but even then the fact that mere alleged religious beliefs could be used as justification for doing evil merits the connection, I think.

The blood of countless people has been split due to actions clearly taken in the name of God. From the crusades to every religious war; from mothers sending their children to be with God to the 9/11 attacks; from battered slaves to murdered abortion doctors... Need I go on? Each of these evil acts would almost certainly not have happened had it not been for belief in a mandate from a supernatural source.

On the other hand, I have never heard of a single person who ever did bad things in the name of lack of belief in anything in general, or in atheism in particular. Have you? That doesn't mean it's never happened, of course, but it does indicate how rare it is, in comparison.

Since this is of course way off topic, I'll finish by recommending some further reading: god is not Great: How religion poisons everything, by Christopher Hitchens

In this talk at Google, Hitchens defends the "everything" in the subtitle of his book: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Ninety5rpm,
I respect what you are saying and would never try to tell you what your relationship with a God or the idea of a God should be. You have lived your life and I am not your judge. I don't agree with some of your assertions, but so what? I don't agree with a lot of things. I don't believe in forced evangelism. I believe that if someone wants to know what my story is, I will tell them what I have seen. If someone wants to question me about my beliefs in an effort to prove to me I am wrong, I will deny that evangelism to them because I didn't ask them to do so and that applies to evangelical Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists. I don't say this to be prickly, but I don't go to people I don't know very well about questions such as this. I have people in my life who's judgment I trust and who I have known for many years. I struggle with my faith, I think anyone who looks at the reality around them has to. But I cannot deny the reality of what has happened in my life, and you certainly will not be able to persuade me regarding those things. So lets just shake hands and you live your life and I will live mine.

I'm simply asking about your whether you agree with me that it's important to not conflate the two kinds of faith... the kind of faith that is reasonably based on at least some objective/verifiable evidence from the kind that is based on no evidence, or only on subjective/unverifiable evidence. Or do you believe it's fine to conflate the two, to not make a distinction?

 

[Anonymous]

I'm simply asking about your whether you agree with me that it's important to not conflate the two kinds of faith... the kind of faith that is reasonably based on at least some objective/verifiable evidence from the kind that is based on no evidence, or only on subjective/unverifiable evidence. Or do you believe it's fine to conflate the two, to not make a distinction?

I believe in faith.

Edit: OK, I will say this once more and that is it: I believe the base character of any faith is the same.

 

[Parrot23]

One slight problem Ninety5rpm: Hitchens was a big believer in the Iraq War/invasion.

Moral of the story: everyone [f....s] up at some point or other. Everyone. Not divisible by religions, class, ethnicity, political beliefs. Everyone: it's an equal opportunity "society of error". LOL

These unilateral divisions are naive. They cross-cut faiths and individual people, depending on "time and chance". Good book to read here is Ecclesiastes (circa 2,500-3,000 year old text). Some surprising conclusions in there. Realism. Depends on the individual.

Hence, faith or not. Either is fine. It's a choice. We're free.

 

[Parrot23]

I believe in faith.

It's not gonna hurt you, even if you're wrong (and I don't think you are).

Ninety5rpm is a big believer in the placebo effect.

(It's a strong and beneficial faith, with very little causal explanation among the medical community: they are befuddled that they can't explain it rationally; but it exists, it's true, and it's there).

Three cheers.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not gonna hurt you, even if you're wrong (and I don't think you are).

Ninety5rpm is a big believer in the placebo effect.

That's fine, I have faith in what I have experienced. I don't care what anyone else believes in regards to that because I will wake up in my skin and they never will.

 

[Parrot23]

Re: "your own skin/experience"

Good book:

Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi.

Goes through many of these issues from a scientific point of view. Hitchen is a newspaper hack; this guy is a philosopher and practicing scientist (Oxford etc.)

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/polanyi.htm

NB: there's an online viewable copy on Google's book site (correction).

 

[Anonymous]

Re: "your own skin/experience"

Good book:

Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi.

Goes through many of these issues from a scientific point of view. Hitchen is a hack; this guy is a philosopher and practicing scientist

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/polanyi.htm

Looks great, I need to return a book tomorrow, so I will see if there is a copy in our system. I always appreciate good suggestions about reading material. Thanks.

Hitchens likes to hear himself talk.

 

[Anonymous]

Looks great, I need to return a book tomorrow, so I will see if there is a copy in our system. I always appreciate good suggestions about reading material. Thanks.

Hitchens likes to hear himself talk.

They have "Meaning" "The Tacit Demension" and "Knowing and Being" I am drawn to "Meaning" myself, any suggestion?

 

[Parrot23]

Personal Knowledge is influential. The others, not really (no one refers to them). Would forget about them, except maybe Tacit Dimension (that's what you were arguing for).

See the scrollable copy of the first one on Google site (correction):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=wZ9...78WoAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I don't think so as I know the effects a narcissist has on the lives of others first hand. However, I do not know him personally. I am merely presenting my opinion of him.

So, you are judging him rather than his behavior? In particular, without ever even meeting him, you conclude he's a narcissist, and transfer the, uh, misgivings you have for a narcissist you know firsthand to him. Christians are a hoot. What does this remind me of? Oh yes...

When it comes to bull****, big-time, major league bull****, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!

http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm

I do not believe the character of faith is multi-faceted. I just don't. You believe that "objective" and "verifiable" are absolute terms and I do not philosophically believe that to be the case.

Faith has character? Hmm. I'll have to think about that.

You think I believe that "objective" and "verifiable" are absolute terms? Huh? Where did you get that?

Perhaps "faith" is too loaded of a term. Can we talk about what people believe? Example... one person might believe that if she studies and works hard and smart, she will achieve her goal. Another might believe that as long as she keeps buying Lotto tickets using the birthdays of her first 5 boyfriends, she will win a lot of money. Can you distinguish the beliefs of these two girls? Do you think one is preferable to the other? By what criteria do you make this judgment? Can you think of a criteria that should work to compare the value of any two beliefs?

A more pertinent example... a newbie cycling fan who just learned that peloton has only one e believes, because it feels true in his heart, that Armstrong is clean and has always been clean. Another fan, who has been following cycling for 25 years, since Lemond, following Armstrong since the world championship days, shocked by the Festina affair, even more shocked by the high speeds in the '99 Tour despite the Festina affair, heart broken by one great rider after another falling due to doping, has read all the books, knows most of what has been said, etc., has come to believe that most of pro cyclists , and certainly all of the top cyclists, including Armstrong, must be doping. Can you distinguish the beliefs of these two fans? Do you think one is preferable to the other? By what criteria do you make this judgment? Can you think of a criteria that should work to compare the value of any two beliefs?

I can come up with tons of examples like this, perhaps you can too. But here's my problem. The more examples I come up with, the more I hone my general criteria by which I evaluate beliefs, the more that criteria, when applied to belief in the existence of supernatural beings, renders such belief to be nonsense. But maybe you can come up with a general criteria for evaluating beliefs that doesn't do that, but still comes up with reasonable outcomes when evaluating beliefs that having nothing to do with the supernatural. I would be interested in seeing that.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

One slight problem Ninety5rpm: Hitchens was a big believer in the Iraq War/invasion.

Moral of the story: everyone [f....s] up at some point or other. Everyone. Not divisible by religions, class, ethnicity, political beliefs. Everyone: it's an equal opportunity "society of error". LOL

Of course no one is perfect. Certainly Hitchens is not perfect! And I do disagree with him on Iraq and the middle east in general. But how is that a problem? I'm recommending a book he wrote. I'm not recommending that anyone believe and accept every word he says - which is the only scenario I could conceive for which his imperfections would be a problem.

These unilateral divisions are naive.

Divisions of what?

 

[rhubroma]

Faust? That's something else I don't get. Why the pompous moral indignation?

It's bike racing for crying out loud, an entertainment industry. Perspective, man, perspective.

Surely you don't look to sports stars for moral guidance, do you? The inspiration to achieve goals, sure. But morality? Please! Selling your soul???

Ninety5rpm now I've loss my patience with you, especially in regards to that rediculous drivel about Lance the taumaturge you put up here, which quite naturally moved Jack.

Childrens' stories. Another tiresome fairytale attached to the long line of fables we have had to support.

I had stated before that while the fact that Lance doped in itself would not be the moral issue, given that they all dope among those in contention for the Tour, but that I have serious issues (moral) with a man who has used his persona, power and money to ridicule anyone who either has been critical of his associations in the past (like with Dr. Ferrari), or has broken the omertà ruining the sport (like Simeoni). And that the issue at stake was transparancy, because he didn't just decide to fade away into a normal retirement, but, to the contrary, has opted to go public. While to go public Armstrong has cynically coopted the cancer community to flaunt his (doped) career while making a comeback in their name, when it's really about his own ego, and that he potentially has other public ambitions, again in their name, whether political as governor of Texas as he hasn't excluded or otherwise.

But in my book a man who has cynically used the cancer community to gain impunity, stoke his own overbearing ego and as potentially a launching pad for a political career, while he has at once comported himself like a mafia boss to sustain the wide corruption which governs cycling in regards to doping, is not worthy of a future career in public life of the State because of the extremely grave transparency issue.

This transparancy aspect overrides all other issues and it's not about mere "entertainment" anymore, as you have erroneously suggested, but about the very ethical issues which determine who in a democratic society is, and who is not, fit to enjoy the privledges and benifits of a public career. Other than further accolades. The man should be exposed for what truly lies behind the facade his propaganda has manipulated, namely an incredibly corrupt and ruthless liar on a power/ego trip.

And it is frankly sickening to have to assist to the utter nonesense about Lance "the healer." He is not a healer. Such a false mysticism is outrageously idiotic to even suggest, let alone put up on this thread. The cancer community is not being helped by his story, and will only be helped by new drugs produced in the established research labs. That's it.

 

[53x11 in DC]

Ninety5rpm now I've loss my patience with you, especially in regards to that rediculous drivel about Lance the taumaturge you put up here, which quite naturally moved Jack.

Childrens' stories. Another tiresome fairytale attached to the long line of fables we have had to support.

I had stated before that while the fact that Lance doped in itself would not be the moral issue, given that they all dope among those in contention for the Tour, but that I have serious issues (moral) with a man who has used his persona, power and money to ridicule anyone who either has been critical of his associations in the past (like with Dr. Ferrari), or has broken the omertà ruining the sport (like Simeoni). And that the issue at stake was transparancy, because he didn't just decide to fade away into a normal retirement, but, to the contrary, has opted to go public. While to go public Armstrong has cynically coopted the cancer community to flaunt his (doped) career while making a comeback in their name, when it's really about his own ego, and that he potentially has other public ambitions, again in their name, whether political as governor of Texas as he hasn't excluded or otherwise.

But in my book a man who has cynically used the cancer community to gain impunity, stoke his own overbearing ego and as potentially a launching pad for a political career, while he has at once comported himself like a mafia boss to sustain the wide corruption which governs cycling in regards to doping, is not worthy of a future career in public life of the State because of the extremely grave transparency issue.

This transparancy aspect overrides all other issues and it's not about mere "entertainment" anymore, as you have erroneously suggested, but about the very ethical issues which determine who in a democratic society is, and who is not, fit to enjoy the privledges and benifits of a public career. Other than further accolades. The man should be exposed for what truly lies behind the facade his propaganda has manipulated, namely an incredibly corrupt and ruthless liar on a power/ego trip.

And it is frankly sickening to have to assist to the utter nonesense about Lance "the healer." He is not a healer. Such a false mysticism is outrageously idiotic to even suggest, let alone put up on this thread. The cancer community is not being helped by his story, and will only be helped by new drugs produced in the established research labs. That's it.

Rhubby:

Do your students get graded on spelling? Just wondering. I know you're sort of an ex-pat, but really?

 

[rhubroma]

Rhubby:

Do your students get graded on spelling? Just wondering. I know you're sort of an ex-pat, but really?

Yea, well, I really do suck at it don't I. I always have, and I don't know why...

 

[Anonymous]

So, you are judging him rather than his behavior? In particular, without ever even meeting him, you conclude he's a narcissist, and transfer the, uh, misgivings you have for a narcissist you know firsthand to him. Christians are a hoot. What does this remind me of? Oh yes...

No, I am judging him based on his behavior as you are judging me based on posts. Your not to swift on this stuff huh?

 

[Anonymous]

Faith has character? Hmm. I'll have to think about that.

You think I believe that "objective" and "verifiable" are absolute terms? Huh? Where did you get that?

If they are not, then you base your conclusion on unverifiable criteria and are therefore expressing the characteristics you deem inappropriate for another to base their decision upon. Hey, I guess you are allowed to do so. You want to parse out terms, lets parse out verifiable while we are at it.

Perhaps "faith" is too loaded of a term. Can we talk about what people believe? Example... one person might believe that if she studies and works hard and smart, she will achieve her goal. Another might believe that as long as she keeps buying Lotto tickets using the birthdays of her first 5 boyfriends, she will win a lot of money. Can you distinguish the beliefs of these two girls? Do you think one is preferable to the other? By what criteria do you make this judgment? Can you think of a criteria that should work to compare the value of any two beliefs?

A more pertinent example... a newbie cycling fan who just learned that peloton has only one e believes, because it feels true in his heart, that Armstrong is clean and has always been clean. Another fan, who has been following cycling for 25 years, since Lemond, following Armstrong since the world championship days, shocked by the Festina affair, even more shocked by the high speeds in the '99 Tour despite the Festina affair, heart broken by one great rider after another falling due to doping, has read all the books, knows most of what has been said, etc., has come to believe that most of pro cyclists , and certainly all of the top cyclists, including Armstrong, must be doping. Can you distinguish the beliefs of these two fans? Do you think one is preferable to the other? By what criteria do you make this judgment? Can you think of a criteria that should work to compare the value of any two beliefs?

I can come up with tons of examples like this, perhaps you can too. But here's my problem. The more examples I come up with, the more I hone my general criteria by which I evaluate beliefs, the more that criteria, when applied to belief in the existence of supernatural beings, renders such belief to be nonsense. But maybe you can come up with a general criteria for evaluating beliefs that doesn't do that, but still comes up with reasonable outcomes when evaluating beliefs that having nothing to do with the supernatural. I would be interested in seeing that.

Well good for you. I felt the same way when I was 16.

Now, this is my last post truly. I have tried to make peace and you are unwilling to accept that. Again, an evangelical atheist is as annoying as a Christian one.

Toodles.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Dawn breaks on the east coast....morning TFF, it's another gorgeous day in western Europe...what say we all make nice today?

 

[Anonymous]

Dawn breaks on the east coast....morning TFF, it's another gorgeous day in western Europe...what say we all make nice today?

I am trying, really. However I have an evangelical atheist who is bent on trying to convince me that my personal experience as a human is invalid based on the data he has collected regarding his life. I guess you just cannot get fundamentalists of any stripe to shut up?

I don't have to like everyone. I guess the ignore function is my only resource. I don't like to use it, but in this case at least I won't have to look at Flandis every day.

 

[Anonymous]

Dawn breaks on the east coast....morning TFF, it's another gorgeous day in western Europe...what say we all make nice today?

But it is nice that we have made peace.

 

[beroepsrenner]

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.

This is without doubt the most ilinformed trash I have ever heard, obviously written by an armchair expert with no knowledge of doping other than heresay and the garbage put out by the media. Every pro cyclist originally got to that level because he was an exceptional athlete. Without first having the natural ability and then doing the training required, no drug is going to make you perform. All doping does is give the extra edge required. I tried the lot and while yes it gave me strength and endurance beyond what i could achieve from training alone it made no difference at all to my results. Most cyclists I raced with at pro level did so simply to cope with the constant demands placed upon them to get results and to stand up to the constant workload of racing for 9 or 10 months of the year. While I agree that armstrongs results come first and foremost from ability and training, to assume that he has never used performance enhanceing substances would be a little naive. It makes no difference to his results one way or the other.

 

[BigBoat]

It's bike racing for crying out loud, an entertainment industry. Perspective, man, perspective.

Surely you don't look to sports stars for moral guidance, do you? The inspiration to achieve goals, sure. But morality? Please! Selling your soul???

I think one of the problems with Lance is that he has sold himself as a moral wall of support for very very sick people. He tells these sick suffering, fighting people they can eventually beat cancer and then achieve their goals in life like he supposedly did, on sheer power of will. Which we can agree is a load of BS.

 

[beroepsrenner]

I think one of the problems with Lance is that he has sold himself as a moral wall of support for very very sick people. He tells these sick suffering, fighting people they can eventually beat cancer and then achieve their goals in life like he supposedly did, on sheer power of will. Which we can agree is a load of BS.

If someone is facing death by a possibly incurable disease what harm canbe done by receiving inspiration from a high profile person who beat the same odds. Yes some of Armstrongs motivation comes from his own ego. SO WHAT? Its not for you and I to condemn him for it. As I've said elsewhere on this forum all the negative sentiment directed at him is nothing more than the tall poppy syndrome at work.