Wallace said:
This really disappoints me, purely from a performance standpoint. While I do admire the "consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds" and Whitmanian "I am large and contain multitudes" approach, the lack of subtly here only points to some truly mediocre trolling. When you come here saying "I dislike Tygart because of_______," and then when shown that claim is inaccurate, can only switch to, "well, I really dislike Tygart because (insert opposite of previous claim)" and then, when that's shown to be erroneous, can only scratch around for another preposterous reason.... well: its just too obvious. Ham-fisted. Look at how many threads Laura Lynn clogged up for so long as an example of how a little consistency and subtly can really bog down a site. You need to develop a more subtle and seemingly reasoned persona, if you really want to do some damage here.
I could say I was devastated by your disappointment but I am not.
There is no way to win an argument as there is no moving the needle here.
Those who try are derided as trolls and fools.
It comes down to this.
I can do one of two things.
1. Admit that like most americans, I really don't care that he doped. They all did, he just did the same things, trained more and still kicked their asses. His natural gifts showed up as a teenager. Had they all raced clean he would have done equally well. For a better recitation, I'd refer to Sally Jenkins but we all know how you feel about here here.
2. I can deny all that and decide that a man I admired suddenly became something else. Shiva, the destroyer of World. The I can become one of the Mass of men living lives of quiet desperation and spend my life excoriating Lance on internet forums.
I don't see the latter as something I would participate in regardless. Tearing people down endlessly by making the same argument over and over is the foolish consistency of little minds.
I'm gonna stop posting and ride my bike.