Is anyone else getting tired

[SirLes]

Not helping me a bit here, still hopelessly preoccupied about breasts since somebody brought up that subject. Funnily enough nobody has so far mentioned PEDs and breasts in the same sentence... Any thoughts?

It is possible for improvements to be artificial.

However if I see some thing unusually impressive i don't immediately assume there is anything unnatural about it.

Obviously if you know the history of that person you can become suspicious if there are sudden improvements beyond what could be reasonably be expected.

There have been some high profile cases of individuals saying they've never used artificial methods it's just good genes, diet, changes to position or new types of clothing and equipment which is responsible for the dramatic change. Only to later be caught out and shown to be lying.

It is easy therefore to become cynical but I've ridden some very talented individuals and can vouch for the fact that very impressive results can be achieved without cheating.

I therefore feel one must always take an innocent until proven guilty on these matters.

 

[ianfra]

I think you have a different personal definition of the word "evidence" than most people.

I think it is quite interesting that whenever I post on this topic, the warmongers amongst you are quick to reply with silly little points, such as this one, but never ever rebut the points of substance. Read the post again or go for a ride!
Interesting aside: how many of you dopes actually ride a bike?

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

I think it is quite interesting that whenever I post on this topic, the warmongers amongst you are quick to reply with silly little points, such as this one, but never ever rebut the points of substance. Read the post again or go for a ride!
Interesting aside: how many of you dopes actually ride a bike?

Multi year Elite License holder. Ridden numerous UCI rated classics in Belgium and Holland. raced in same races as guys like VDB, Bruylandts, Hoogerland, Westra, Traksel, Boom to name a few.

Have also actually written articles about road racing for a national newspaper.

You?

 

[JPM London]

I think it is quite interesting that whenever I post on this topic, the warmongers amongst you are quick to reply with silly little points, such as this one, but never ever rebut the points of substance. Read the post again or go for a ride!
Interesting aside: how many of you dopes actually ride a bike?

If I sat on anything resembling a racing bike for more than a few seconds my a$$ would hurt so unbelievably I would try and negotiate myself off the bike again, which would obviously be very difficult considering the rather awkward position I would find myself in with my head downwards and all... Not to mention blood rushing to the head and sore back from trying to maintain that same position for a period of time merely resembling that which rodeo cowboys spend on bulls.

Sorry, guess that means no But then again; I'm neither dope nor warmonger so I shouldn't be answering the q in the first place...

 

[ianfra]

Actually spent a bit of time today in my air-con office having done a 42-mile bash in 42 degrees of heat today. It gave me an opportunity to read through some of these posts and I am really appalled that some of you seem to have taken on the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner. My god what an arrogant bunch of know-it-alls. If someone even hints at any opposition to your firmly held beliefs then you fly back with insults. I've referred on this thread to people who hold a monopoly on truth (you know like Jehovah's Witnesses, Taliban leaders and so on) and in these threads I see that there are a hard=-core of you who are prepared to go as far as naming names of riders against whom there is not one shred of evidence. Yes, that word again, Evidence. And people who do not know the meaning of the word could go and see a lawyer or read a dictionary and try to understand what evidence actually is.
My challenge to you: Provide me with 100% cast iron evidence that, let's say Bradley Wiggins, has doped and I won't be able to argue against you. In other words, put up or shut up.

 

[JPM London]

My challenge to you: Provide me with 100% cast iron evidence that, let's say Bradley Wiggins, has doped and I won't be able to argue against you. In other words, put up or shut up.

Should we turn this into the "who believes Wiggins is clean thread"?

I go for: Yes, the man is clean! (just like I think most of the peloton is today...)

 

[alberto.legstrong]

This is like a soap opera. Take a couple weeks off and the posts are almost identical. Guess it's time to move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Actually spent a bit of time today in my air-con office having done a 42-mile bash in 42 degrees of heat today. It gave me an opportunity to read through some of these posts and I am really appalled that some of you seem to have taken on the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner. My god what an arrogant bunch of know-it-alls. If someone even hints at any opposition to your firmly held beliefs then you fly back with insults. I've referred on this thread to people who hold a monopoly on truth (you know like Jehovah's Witnesses, Taliban leaders and so on) and in these threads I see that there are a hard=-core of you who are prepared to go as far as naming names of riders against whom there is not one shred of evidence. Yes, that word again, Evidence. And people who do not know the meaning of the word could go and see a lawyer or read a dictionary and try to understand what evidence actually is.
My challenge to you: Provide me with 100% cast iron evidence that, let's say Bradley Wiggins, has doped and I won't be able to argue against you. In other words, put up or shut up.

There is way more evidence suggesting that Armstrong doped than there is suggesting he didn't.

The only evidence that he didn't is that he wasn't sanctioned for failing a test.

We now know that passing a test back then was like taking candy from a baby.

 

[Jonathan]

My challenge to you: Provide me with 100% cast iron evidence that, let's say Bradley Wiggins, has doped and I won't be able to argue against you. In other words, put up or shut up.

Careful what you wish for. Evidence can be anything from an indication to incontrovertible proof.

Forum members are not 'judge and jury' as you claim, because the forum is not a court of law. We're free to give our opinion about what did or did not happen; telling others to 'shut up' is ineffective. Also, we're all free to decide what 'evidence' we consider to be convincing.

As for the tone of the debate, you'll have to consult the moderators if you think you're treated too harshly.

 

[Jonathan]

There is way more evidence suggesting that Armstrong doped than there is suggesting he didn't.

Ah, but what evidence is 100% cast-iron?

 

[JPM London]

There is way more evidence suggesting that Armstrong doped than there is suggesting he didn't.

The only evidence that he didn't is that he wasn't sanctioned for failing a test.

We now know that passing a test back then was like taking candy from a baby.

Funny... I didn't think you needed to prove that.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Funny... I didn't think you needed to prove that.

I can't really be bothered to discuss Lance anymore.

It's become like evolution vs creationism, or health care reform.

 

[Jonathan]

I can't really be bothered to discuss Lance anymore.

It's become like evolution vs creationism, or health care reform.

...or climate change, or vaccination against cervical cancer. I'm always interested in these topics, especially when they start to look like opposing paradigms.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

...or climate change, or vaccination against cervical cancer. I'm always interested in these topics, especially when they start to look like opposing paradigms.

The problem is that as there are often 2 greatly opposing arguments the argument is extremely polarised yet each view demands equal respect, and the inclination is to meet them halfway and give equal respect to each.

However, we know that creationism is nonsense, just like we know that Lance is a liar and a cheat - why should we dilute the truth to accommodate the incorrect views of the uninformed?

 

[Jonathan]

The problem is that as there are often 2 greatly opposing arguments the argument is extremely polarised yet each view demands equal respect, and the inclination is to meet them halfway and give equal respect to each.

However, we know that creationism is nonsense, just like we know that Lance is a liar and a cheat - why should we dilute the truth to accommodate the incorrect views of the uninformed?

Two opposing views can meet eachother 'halfway' if the two views share a way of communication. To resolve the issue, it has to be treated like a set puzzle, where you can rely on the assumption that there is a solution. However, when the viewpoints have grown too much apart, each side is no longer able to understand the other. They begin questioning another's foundations, use of terms and indicating that what the other thinks is there, 'clearly' isn't.

In the case of Armstrong's doping, one such issue is the 'innocent until proven guilty' axiom. For one side, this is clearly the issue. The other side just doesn't see its' relevance. This is becoming psychological; the appeal of this argument draws on emotions the other side doesn't feel. So the others consider the argument irrelevant. Neither side can rely on the other formulating an acceptable solution to the puzzle.

Another interesting thing is the development of specific communities. There is a pro-Armstrong board (RBR) and this is becoming an anti-Armstrong board. People on the same side practice communication with eachother within their communities, making it more difficult for the other side to go along. Every time we say "it's not about the..." this is alluding to a common joke we share. There are many elements of communication shared by those who think Armstrong doped.

As for the truth, well, Mr. Kuhn never argued much about that. I think the truth can be found in each issue separately. I tend to choose the banal/ boring/mainstream option, that is perhaps the most expected. Armstrong doped, climate is changing, Darwin was right and it's a good idea for girls to be vaccinated.

 

[Race Radio]

I think it is quite interesting that whenever I post on this topic, the warmongers amongst you are quick to reply with silly little points, such as this one, but never ever rebut the points of substance. Read the post again or go for a ride!
Interesting aside: how many of you dopes actually ride a bike?

Prior to going on your next misinformed rant read this

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Get back to as to why an expert like Ashenden is wrong.

 

[buckwheat]

Multi year Elite License holder. Ridden numerous UCI rated classics in Belgium and Holland. raced in same races as guys like VDB, Bruylandts, Hoogerland, Westra, Traksel, Boom to name a few.

Have also actually written articles about road racing for a national newspaper.

You?

Hey, good to have you here!

Please keep us updated with your insights thoughts, and opinions .

Will be greatly appreciated!

The cool breeze will be welcomed.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think it is quite interesting that whenever I post on this topic, the warmongers amongst you are quick to reply with silly little points, such as this one, but never ever rebut the points of substance. Read the post again or go for a ride!
Interesting aside: how many of you dopes actually ride a bike?

Is there some sort of Lance teabagger manifesto somewhere, where this is recomended as a successful talking point? Or are you guys all the same person or can you just not come up with anything better?

 

[Digger]

My challenge to you: Provide me with 100% cast iron evidence that, let's say Bradley Wiggins, has doped and I won't be able to argue against you. In other words, put up or shut up.

Hypothetically, would a positve test suffice? Because a positive test does not suffice for many Tyler, Floyd and Lance fans.

 

[BikeCentric]

It is possible for improvements to be artificial.

However if I see some thing unusually impressive i don't immediately assume there is anything unnatural about it.

Obviously if you know the history of that person you can become suspicious if there are sudden improvements beyond what could be reasonably be expected.

There have been some high profile cases of individuals saying they've never used artificial methods it's just good genes, diet, changes to position or new types of clothing and equipment which is responsible for the dramatic change. Only to later be caught out and shown to be lying.

It is easy therefore to become cynical but I've ridden some very talented individuals and can vouch for the fact that very impressive results can be achieved without cheating.

I therefore feel one must always take an innocent until proven guilty on these matters.

LOL. Well done.

 

[buckwheat]

Have actually never really visited the racing threads before, but just took a wee detour there. Blimey, there's almost more doping comments and discussion in there than here! Definitely understand your frustration...

Being that racing at the highest levels is mostly dependent on doping, the doping comments are just a reflection of reality.

It's a shame some of us don't want to live in the reality based world.

 

[Anonymous]

Being that racing at the highest levels is mostly dependent on doping, the doping comments are just a reflection of reality.

It's a shame some of us don't want to live in the reality based world.

But it's like those Christians who won't stop banging on about God! Yes, we get it, we heard you the first time...

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry about the prior version of my post Hibbles; it was unnecessary - my bad.

No probs, cheers for the apol.

 

[Ferdinand Artichoke]

No probs, cheers for the apol.

don't trust him...he's a troll!


and anyone who says 'my bad' in an adult interaction is a clearly a child molester!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

don't trust him...he's a troll!

and anyone who says 'my bad' in an adult interaction is a clearly a child molester!

I know you're trying to be funny, but you may want to limit what you say directly to others like this, even if construed as playful insults, or you may find yourself unable to post.