Lance Armstrong Cheated to Win. Why is that Wrong? - Reason Magazine

[Turner29]

Of what also needs to be considered is that if doping is allowed within certain levels, those levels need to be uniformly enforced.

The sociopath Lance Armstrong had no such worries and was not concerned about his health.

This is not a champion, not in my book anyway.

 

[blackcat]

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-lance-bomb-has-blown-but-is-doping-really-cheating-10183

 

[blackcat]

I don't look at them like children. I look at them like men who are part of a culture that treats them like children. That paternalistic culture is disgusting--and it leads to people like Zabriskie getting paid ONLY $15,000 per year by people like Bruyneel. Sometimes, I can't help it, I'm revolted. Those sheep-men need to grow a pair and ORGANIZE!

The system is hopelessly corrupt. The "clean" riders promote the corrupt culture just like the "dirty" riders promote the corrupt culture. Every race is a corrupt joke--on both the cheaters and the clean riders.

Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

I dont know if I believe Zabriskie. Perhaps he did not have that accident with his bag falling like Decanio said, but on the level of believability, his story stands with Millar and Vaughters, and even Decanio starts looking credible!

so he was in tears when threatened to get with the program? Come on. believability richter scale? It aint san andreas

 

[deboat]

I will quote my father
"If you win your a winner!
If you loose your a loser,
If you cheat and win and don't get caught your a winner,
If you get caught your a loser! What are you going to do!!"

He is an A-hole!

I think this mind set is very related to this thread because "Why is that Wrong?"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There are also the unwritten rules of the peloton. And the fact is that those unwritten rules also exist for a reason. The unwritten rules allow pretty much any kind of doping--so long as you don't get caught.

An "index of what is considered right or fair" is only needed to mollify sponsors or fans. Vino and Kolobdnev certainly had their own distinct understanding of what is right and fair! And Lance, snitching off other dopers? Only Whitey Bulger (and Hein Verbruggen) would think that was fair!

Pro cycling is an enjoyable joke. The races are ALWAYS corrupt, because they are ALWAYS debased by a large proportion of doped riders. And it has ALWAYS been that way.

The written rules of the UCI are just hints to the real rules that control the actual behavior of the actors in the filthy drama of pro cycling.

And why do these 'unwritten rules' exist??
Because they have broken the actual rules.

 

[Lukenwolf]

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-lance-bomb-has-blown-but-is-doping-really-cheating-10183

I knew the article was utter claptrap, when I read this:

If that many cyclists were doping, it could be argued that Le Tour, across the Armstrong era – 1999 to 2005 – was, to some extent, being raced on a level playing field.

Level playing field my ****. First of all there was a Hct cutoff at 50%, so someone, who had 42% naturally could gain a much higher boost than someone, who had 46% and there are more than one cases where people actually couldn't use EPO, because their bodies reacted adversely (Zabel and Swart come to mind). It's a ridiculous idea

 

[hiero2]

You have to realize reason.com is THE site for Ayn Rand nutters. Considering how one's decisions affect other people is not part of the ideology. It is a heresy.

“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.”

OUCH! Now, in my book, calling somebody a Rand nutter is a REAL insult. I've never understood exactly why people think she is philosophical, and had some basic grasp of truth, when Louis L'Amour probably had more common sense in his characters than ANYthing in Rand! Yeesh. The woman fled the Russian communists, and was off the other end because of it. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[hiero2]

Don't sigh. This piece by Nick Gilespie makes some valid points. Especially the last one.
. . .

<Sigh>. No good points - just another rehash of "Jeez, Lance doped and cheated, so it is ok to lie and dope and cheat!"

Yeah - the last point - that Lance was an a-hole right through might be a good point, but considering the rest of it, I think it is just camouflage.

To me, the unfortunate side of all this is that there are a lot of people thinking this way. Which is, unfortunate.

 

[MarkvW]

And why do these 'unwritten rules' exist??
Because they have broken the actual rules.

The unwritten rules exist because the written rules are not enforced. They are relatively meaningless. As several riders have said, the antidoping rules are no more than an IQ test.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The unwritten rules exist because the written rules are not enforced. They are relatively meaningless. As several riders have said, the antidoping rules are no more than an IQ test.

Again, this makes little sense.
If what you said was true, then the 'unwritten' rules would be there to to enforce compliance because the actual rules are not enforced.
As I said, the unwritten rules are there because they break the actual rules.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

This thread is slipping into the abyss. If we introduce shades of grey into what must be a black or white definition, we tacitly support doping with a weak definition of what it is or is not.

If athletes are willing to transfuse blood, inject chemicals, fly around in choppers and jets to avoid OOC testing, the problem is not with the rules, its with the people and culture, and consequences.

Making doping and enabling doping criminal (it is in some countries already), severe bans, salary cap for returning riders......we can go on and on but until the penalties are so severe that being caught once really hurts, twice your career ends.......we are just sitting in a circle.

 

[MarkvW]

Again, this makes little sense.
If what you said was true, then the 'unwritten' rules would be there to to enforce compliance because the actual rules are not enforced.
As I said, the unwritten rules are there because they break the actual rules.

Whatever. This is more a semantic argument than anything else.

But however you slice it, the "actual rules" are just an IQ test. The riders are able to break the "actual rules" because the "actual rules" are not enforced. When there's an enforcement void, the people make their own rules. That has always been the case in the pro peloton.

It will be interesting to see whether the UCI creates an adequately funded independent antidoping enforcement agency. In the long term, a cleaner peloton would mean more money for everybody because sponsors wouldn't be so afraid of buying into a doping sideshow. But a cleaner and richer peloton would mean a more businesslike peloton--a peloton that would soon dispose of the corrupt old boy power structure that is presently in power.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Whatever. This is more a semantic argument than anything else.

But however you slice it, the "actual rules" are just an IQ test. The riders are able to break the "actual rules" because the "actual rules" are not enforced. When there's an enforcement void, the people make their own rules. That has always been the case in the pro peloton.

It will be interesting to see whether the UCI creates an adequately funded independent antidoping enforcement agency. In the long term, a cleaner peloton would mean more money for everybody because sponsors wouldn't be so afraid of buying into a doping sideshow. But a cleaner and richer peloton would mean a more businesslike peloton--a peloton that would soon dispose of the corrupt old boy power structure that is presently in power.

Semantics or otherwise your arguement is still wrong.

You say, the rules are an IQ test and then that they are not enforced.
(ignoring that people do get caught)....
There is no 'enforcement void' - the unwritten rules are basic etiquette in the peloton and also how deals are done in races.
But regarding doping,the unwritten rules are only there because they break the actual rules.

 

[MarkvW]

Semantics or otherwise your arguement is still wrong.

You say, the rules are an IQ test and then that they are not enforced.
(ignoring that people do get caught)....
There is no 'enforcement void' - the unwritten rules are basic etiquette in the peloton and also how deals are done in races.
But regarding doping,the unwritten rules are only there because they break the actual rules.

The pro peloton is rotten. Every race is corrupt. We can enjoy the circus and the effort presented, but we shouldn't pretend that there is anything honest going on here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The pro peloton is rotten. Every race is corrupt. We can enjoy the circus and the effort presented, but we shouldn't pretend that there is anything honest going on here.

Certainly, there are races that are bought, deals that are done - but the highlighted is a complete fabrication and I suspect only mentioned to excuse the practices of those who are corrupt.
Which brings us back neatly to the ridiculous article in the OP.

 

[MarkvW]

Certainly, there are races that are bought, deals that are done - but the highlighted is a complete fabrication and I suspect only mentioned to excuse the practices of those who are corrupt.
Which brings us back neatly to the ridiculous article in the OP.

Every race has a substantial proportion of doped riders. That spells corrupt to me.

 

[blackcat]

I knew the article was utter claptrap, when I read this:



Level playing field my ****. First of all there was a Hct cutoff at 50%, so someone, who had 42% naturally could gain a much higher boost than someone, who had 46% and there are more than one cases where people actually couldn't use EPO, because their bodies reacted adversely (Zabel and Swart come to mind). It's a ridiculous idea

dont think Jason implied that.

Just was proposing, once you enter the gates of hell, it is absolute. there is doping, and there is not doping. What% you gain, is insignificant to the fact you are doping.

 

[The Gnome]

Besides just being a horribly written article, his argument pretty much goes nowhere...while the Rand jokers have no real problem with Lance's cheating, likewise they should have no qualms about what is happening to him now...in their own simple minded theoretical system Lance's punishment and fall from grace is merely the Market working itself out...

 

[noddy69]

Whatever. This is more a semantic argument than anything else.

But however you slice it, the "actual rules" are just an IQ test. The riders are able to break the "actual rules" because the "actual rules" are not enforced. When there's an enforcement void, the people make their own rules. That has always been the case in the pro peloton.

It will be interesting to see whether the UCI creates an adequately funded independent antidoping enforcement agency. In the long term, a cleaner peloton would mean more money for everybody because sponsors wouldn't be so afraid of buying into a doping sideshow. But a cleaner and richer peloton would mean a more businesslike peloton--a peloton that would soon dispose of the corrupt old boy power structure that is presently in power.

I also see a flaw in the argument. Didnt sponsors buy in because of the doping sideshow that was armstrong. On top of that the peleton became richer and made the old boy power structure we have in place.
Its not money that will change he system for better or worse its who runs the sport and the morals they bring with them. That is the case whether its a rich or poor sport.
Doping is the big issue and needs sorting now. To do that it must be ensured that the right people are put in place with cyclings best interests at heart. Not commercial interests, not the peletons big riders interests but the sport itself. People who are not afraid to make the right decisions under pressure to sort out the mess that has been building in cycling for years.

 

[shades1]

is about time people just except that performace enhancing drugs are notorious in the sport of cycling and always have been and probably always will be , but i will not let this effect my love of the sport .

at the end of the day lance armstrong is the best thats ever lived .

except it !!

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

is about time people just except that performace enhancing drugs are notorious in the sport of cycling and always have been and probably always will be , but i will not let this effect my love of the sport .

at the end of the day lance armstrong is the best thats ever lived .

except it !!

Some deep thoughts there.

 

[MarkvW]

I also see a flaw in the argument. Didnt sponsors buy in because of the doping sideshow that was armstrong. On top of that the peleton became richer and made the old boy power structure we have in place.
Its not money that will change he system for better or worse its who runs the sport and the morals they bring with them. That is the case whether its a rich or poor sport.
Doping is the big issue and needs sorting now. To do that it must be ensured that the right people are put in place with cyclings best interests at heart. Not commercial interests, not the peletons big riders interests but the sport itself. People who are not afraid to make the right decisions under pressure to sort out the mess that has been building in cycling for years.

It seems obvious to me that UCI's 'see-no-evil' antidoping posture is bad for business. So many sponsors (I assume) are repelled by the dirty nature of the sport. Gerolsteiner comes to mind. I can't figure out why the UCI's leadership structure doesn't get that.

 

[blackcat]

Whatever. This is more a semantic argument than anything else.

But however you slice it, the "actual rules" are just an IQ test. The riders are able to break the "actual rules" because the "actual rules" are not enforced. When there's an enforcement void, the people make their own rules. That has always been the case in the pro peloton.

It will be interesting to see whether the UCI creates an adequately funded independent antidoping enforcement agency. In the long term, a cleaner peloton would mean more money for everybody because sponsors wouldn't be so afraid of buying into a doping sideshow. But a cleaner and richer peloton would mean a more businesslike peloton--a peloton that would soon dispose of the corrupt old boy power structure that is presently in power.

or doping and being one step ahead, even under a new paradigm, could entrench the rewards to the few who gamble, and make a further skewed haves versus havenots. Armstrongs personal income in his last years, and the discovery year, could have trumped the entire peloton (counting endorsement income). Then you have the AIG phenomenon of too big to fail.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Forget all this crap about " level playing fields"..theres no such thing..never was , never will be.
But what there is..at the sharp end of clean elite sport is a very narrow variance in ability such that superior psychological strength ( dealing with pressures) and tactical nounce might trump physical superiority and thus even up what is in reality a very narrow variance ( perhaps 1..2%) in terms of physical capacity.
Add doping to the mix that variance might go out to 5%..10% maybe even 15%.
Thus doping trumps all other variances to such a degree the clean competitor is not in the same game.
Call doping out for what it is. Theft, plain and simple.

 

[MarkvW]

Forget all this crap about " level playing fields"..theres no such thing..never was , never will be.
But what there is..at the sharp end of clean elite sport is a very narrow variance in ability such that superior psychological strength ( dealing with pressures) and tactical nounce might trump physical superiority and thus even up what is in reality a very narrow variance ( perhaps 1..2%) in terms of physical capacity.
Add doping to the mix that variance might go out to 5%..10% maybe even 15%.
Thus doping trumps all other variances to such a degree the clean competitor is not in the same game.
Call doping out for what it is. Theft, plain and simple.

But why don't the riders take that approach? It's not only theft, but riders themselves usually have to bear the very expensive costs of the dope.