Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[rhubroma]

Because they're people who want to believe they live in a somewhat rational and productive society, rather than a merely passive, enthusiastic and vengeful one. Spectatorial if you like.

It's clear to many that these are hard concepts to grasp (and the extrapolation of their denial or repression is a bit frightening to say the least) but to deny the basic points--let's not say dumb obviousness--of the argument is churlish at best and more than childish toward the worst.

Well what I'd define as a rational and productive society has nothing to do with one in which sport has transcended any intrinsic entertainment value, and permits athletes to earn seven figures on the backs of what has become a rather mediocre pop, commercial society these days. I think under such circumstances the passiveness, enthusiasm and vengefulness go hand in hand. Given that some have exploited the system and culture to maximum effect, I think it's reasonable that any wrongdoing for which they might be convicted would come with a price that's comparable in measure.

 

[aphronesis]

Hey Man, don't spoil my light-beer buzz.

I'm in a reverie with Steve Perry wearing a big yellow shirt...in fact, seven yellow shirts.

"A choad in a smoky room/A smell of wine and cheap perfume/For a smile they can share the night at the Yell-ow Rose"

Lance will be vindicated.

Don't Stop...Believin'

Look, I get that this is a hard concept for you to grasp--and all the dim-witted humor only reinforces that--but the larger issue here, to which you posed a question, is not about Lance, but about whether the USADA dealt with him above board and according to the rules and precepts they purport (that means claim) to be following.

That's a little ironic to say the least if one follows the implications to their end. You get that right? No. Clearly you don't. The fact that some of the most vehement detractors of Armstrong on this board are questioning the protocols of this situation seems to be lost on you as you're mostly regressing to allegorical fanboy attacks when it's supposed to be about the sport and not the person.

That said irony is lost here is not surprising. But hey, at least Schon and Perry still get royalties. And you still have your memories. It's all good.

 

[aphronesis]

Well what I'd define as a rational and productive society has nothing to do with one in which sport has transcended any intrinsic entertainment value, and permits athletes to earn seven figures on the backs of what has become a rather mediocre pop, commercial society these days.

I'm working with the reality to which people subscribe. I alluded to all those issues years ago and see them as being even less accessible to criticism and lucid detachment now than they were back then. At least in these parts. I would say, though, that the pop aspect has been re assimilated. As covered in other threads: it's all down to financialization now. Therefore, among other things, the vitriol is deeply displaced. It's the structural violence that should be abhorred more than the personal maladjustment. Otherwise anything and everything said, for the most part, is just hypocritical and abetting more of the same.

Comparable in measure is fine, but that's still be gauged here by the vengeful stick. It's not for the USADA to tally all of that. And that's all other posters have been saying. And if you subscribe to the point of saying "oh, well, the USADA just precipitated the greater capitalist reckoning here" than that only abdicates--or gives evidence of the greater abandonment--that there's any ongoing accountability in society at large.

And, to your general purposes, it only indicates the increased role of sport as a symptom of abnormality and civic dysfunction in the present.

So which is it?

 

[Stingray34]

Look, I get that this is a hard concept for you to grasp--and all the dim-witted humor only reinforces that--but the larger issue here, to which you posed a question, is not about Lance, but about whether the USADA dealt with him above board and according to the rules and precepts they purport (that means claim) to be following.

That's a little ironic to say the least if one follows the implications to their end. You get that right? No. Clearly you don't. The fact that some of the most vehement detractors of Armstrong on this board are questioning the protocols of this situation seems to be lost on you as you're mostly regressing to allegorical fanboy attacks when it's supposed to be about the sport and not the person.

That said irony is lost here is not surprising. But hey, at least Schon and Perry still get royalties. And you still have your memories. It's all good.

Ouch, that really made my **** hurt.

When I get my stuff together in the morning and see off my lady-friend, I'll consider the state actor/leaks/Salem witch hunt/non-constitutional/too much good for too many people/I'm just a rider/Everybody does it/I don't want to, but I will and I did/It's all JV's fault/The Rothschilds stuff all over again.

But I do likes my good beer buzz early in the morning, too.

 

[aphronesis]

Ouch, that really made my **** hurt.

When I get my stuff together in the morning and see off my lady-friend, I'll consider the state actor/leaks/Salem witch hunt/non-constitutional/too much good for too many people/It's all JV's fault/The Rothschilds stuff all over again.

But I do likes my good beer buzz early in the morning, too.

Still working with the past. Anytime you feel up to dropping the talking points, give a shout.

 

[Stingray34]

Still working with the past. Anytime you feel up to dropping the talking points, give a shout.

You psychic, bro?

Crue's 'Shout at the Devil' is next on my mix tape. Uncanny.

I always believed it was a song about Hein...and JV and TT.

 

[Stingray34]

Ah man, I gotta go...my neighbour's bangin on my trailer.

Total buzzkill.

He says I'm blasting my boombox too loud. But I'm very conservative - I only have it at >this much<, but he says it's at <that much>.

Choad. He shoulda heard me in '96.

 

[rhubroma]

Look, I get that this is a hard concept for you to grasp--and all the dim-witted humor only reinforces that--but the larger issue here, to which you posed a question, is not about Lance, but about whether the USADA dealt with him above board and according to the rules and precepts they purport (that means claim) to be following.

That's a little ironic to say the least if one follows the implications to their end. You get that right? No. Clearly you don't. The fact that some of the most vehement detractors of Armstrong on this board are questioning the protocols of this situation seems to be lost on you as you're mostly regressing to allegorical fanboy attacks when it's supposed to be about the sport and not the person.

That said irony is lost here is not surprising. But hey, at least Schon and Perry still get royalties. And you still have your memories. It's all good.

Well, let's put it another way, does any investigation in mafia situations like this ever, in order to get to the big boss, act above board in the way it works its way up through the peons?

Sure there's irony to it, which one might even call Machiavellian, though which the most powerful offenders must accept as a consequence of their own comportment. Certainly nothing to feel ill at ease about, they chose their own path.

 

[aphronesis]

Ah man, I gotta go...my neighbour's bangin on my trailer.

Total buzzkill.

He says I'm blasting my boombox too loud. But I'm very conservative - I only have it at >this much<, but he says it's at <that much>.

Choad. He shoulda heard me in '96.

weird how you want this to be a class issue, when even a cursory scan of the posters on this thread--and factors at large--shows that it's not.

(although in psychoanalytic terms it may yet be.)

but hey, swim at your level.

 

[aphronesis]

Well, let's put it another way, does any investigation in mafia situations like this ever, in order to get to the big boss, act above board in the way it works its way up through the peons?

Sure there's irony to it, which one might even call Machiavellian, though which the most powerful offenders must accept as a consequence of their own comportment. Certainly nothing to feel ill at ease about, they chose their own path.

I don't feel ill at ease about it at all. Other than I'm disturbed by the mafia, etc. analogies. Analogies are an out. And I have to question if those rendering the comparisons do so as actively and insistently in other aspects of life. I think no.

You'll find no post of mine ever that expresses sympathy for the path that one chose. I am, however, capable of empathy--however minor given the triviality of his overall conditions--for his present psychological situation.

Those are two wholly different arguments and it's only the first that even remotely interests me. The second not at all. I know you're aware of that distinction.

 

[rhubroma]

I don't feel ill at ease about it at all. Other than I'm disturbed by the mafia, etc. analogies. Analogies are an out. And I have to question if those rendering the comparisons do so as actively and insistently in other aspects of life. I think no.

You'll find no post of mine ever that expresses sympathy for the path that one chose. I am, however, capable of empathy--however minor given the triviality of his overall conditions--for his present psychological situation.

Those are two wholly different arguments and it's only the first that even remotely interests me. The second not at all. I know you're aware of that distinction.

The mafia analogy isn't disturbing in a sport where omertà is common nomenclature, one, with all do respect to differences in gravity. Empathy for his psychological condition shouldn't have bearing on the decision to inflict a lifetime ban, two; as it is commensurate with the other more grave offenses, which had nothing to do with sport, and potentially weigh much more heavily in the punitive sense. So I’d say only being prevented from competition was a positive outcome in his case, for which fortune has at least not landed him behind bars.

Sure there are worse crimes, though every criminal context has its commensurate penalties. Certainly not all are correct or even civil (here is where I'd agree with your social critique), though, given the mafia analogy you find so disturbing, it must be remembered that he didn’t actually receive a lifelong incarceration or death sentence, an analogy Lance himself, however, would have everyone believe.

This seems to me to be the far greater distinction, of which I know you are aware.

 

[aphronesis]

The mafia analogy isn't disturbing in a sport where omertà is common nomenclature, one, with all do respect to differences in gravity. Empathy for his psychological condition shouldn't have bearing on the decision to inflict a lifetime ban, two; as it is commensurate with the other more grave offenses, which had nothing to do with sport, and potentially weigh much more heavily in the punitive sense. So I’d say only being prevented from competition was a positive outcome in his case, for which fortune has at least not landed him behind bars.

Sure there are worse crimes, though every criminal context has its commensurate penalties. Certainly not all are correct or even civil, though, given the mafia analogy you find so disturbing, it must be remembered that he didn’t actually receive a lifelong incarceration or death sentence, an analogy Lance himself, however, would have everyone believe.

This seems to me to be the far greater distinction, of which I know you are aware.

If we start drawing comparisons between all organizations that borrow nomenclature where will we be?

How many organizations were not mafia like (in psychology) in the late 20th century.

A resurgence of tribalism? What drove that?

As a digression, I think the Euro, US distinction in that whole debacle needs to be factored in.

Digression aside--and this is all I really care to say about this whole sorry event--did the USADA overstep its mandate in overzealous terms. And, if so, to what end, purpose, final result, etc?

Participatorial satisfaction? Bene then. But let's no one pretend there's any ideal reckoning--let alone forward looking achievement--in it. As a singular example to read in one way? Not likely.

 

[Benotti69]

S'funny MonkeyMouth and his groupies crying about the so called unfairness he feels he has been treated by USADA. aaaahhhhh didums.

It might be considered unfair if he played on a level field.

USADA offered MonkeyMouth the same deal all the other team mates, which he claims here merely was one of, and he threw it back in their faces with venom.

This is hurting MonkeyMouth big time. Good. His choice.

 

[rhubroma]

If we start drawing comparisons between all organizations that borrow nomenclature where will we be?

How many organizations were not mafia like (in psychology) in the late 20th century.

A resurgence of tribalism? What drove that?

As a digression, I think the Euro, US distinction in that whole debacle needs to be factored in.

Digression aside--and this is all I really care to say about this whole sorry event--did the USADA overstep its mandate in overzealous terms. And, if so, to what end, purpose, final result, etc?

Participatorial satisfaction? Bene then. But let's no one pretend there's any ideal reckoning in it.

No, I don't think so, and what you speak of in terms of ideal reckoning, in more esoteric spheres, has been called Karma. I believe in neither of course.

 

[aphronesis]

No, I don't think so, and what you speak of in terms of ideal reckoning, in more esoteric spheres, has been called Karma. I believe in neither of course.

Of course, but many do. And there's the rub. (We'll disagree on the other. I can't see it differently and that's parcel with what I say below.)

That aside. There's an asymmetry of power set up between the juridical (and now civil), the spectacular and the monetary. All are interjoined of course, but what I've always felt gets lost in the more stark positions taken here are their interconnection.

Even the way--as Maxiton and I once discussed--that LA's ascendance had much to do with a soft power exercise of its time. Saying that means taking into account, contrarily to an extent, the federal case and its abandonment, but also, I think, qualifying all the tedious moral statements that get made daily on this topic.

 

[TexPat]

I'm working with the reality to which people subscribe. I alluded to all those issues years ago and see them as being even less accessible to criticism and lucid detachment now than they were back then. At least in these parts. I would say, though, that the pop aspect has been re assimilated. As covered in other threads: it's all down to financialization now. Therefore, among other things, the vitriol is deeply displaced. It's the structural violence that should be abhorred more than the personal maladjustment. Otherwise anything and everything said, for the most part, is just hypocritical and abetting more of the same.

Comparable in measure is fine, but that's still be gauged here by the vengeful stick. It's not for the USADA to tally all of that. And that's all other posters have been saying. And if you subscribe to the point of saying "oh, well, the USADA just precipitated the greater capitalist reckoning here" than that only abdicates--or gives evidence of the greater abandonment--that there's any ongoing accountability in society at large.

And, to your general purposes, it only indicates the increased role of sport as a symptom of abnormality and civic dysfunction in the present.

So which is it?

I cannot think of a better example of civic dysfunction than allowing a privileged class of people---professional athletes and management in this case---get away with earning millions by lying, cheating, bullying, tax evasion, blackmail, match fixing, etc.

But I sense that I may have just provided nourishment to something unworthy.

And thanks for the ear worm, Stingray. I have hated Journey since the 70's, and it's taken a long time to forget them.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Even the way--as Maxiton and I once discussed--that LA's ascendance had much to do with a soft power exercise of its time. Saying that means taking into account, contrarily to an extent, the federal case and its abandonment, but also, I think, qualifying all the tedious moral statements that get made daily on this topic.

What soft power? The UCI supported the head of the U.S. Cycling federation's win at any cost operation. When it finally comes crashing down, then it's a political influence showdown and Wiesel and Armstrong won. No soft power there.

As to the tedious moral statements, it's not a sport if the federation is picking winners and not enforcing rules to make winners. That is entertainment. Except the federation is still trying to sell it as a sport.

If they give up the pretense it is a sport, then your criticism has some validity. Otherwise, you are changing the topic to make it agree with your world view.

 

[TexPat]

What soft power? The UCI supported the head of the U.S. Cycling federation's win at any cost operation. When it finally comes crashing down, then it's a political influence showdown and Wiesel and Armstrong won. No soft power there.

As to the tedious moral statements, it's not a sport if the federation is picking winners and not enforcing rules to make winners. That is entertainment. Except the federation is still trying to sell it as a sport.

If they give up the pretense it is a sport, then your criticism has some validity. Otherwise, you are changing the topic to make it agree with your world view.

Yes, thank you. Great post.

 

[aphronesis]

I cannot think of a better example of civic dysfunction than allowing a privileged class of people---professional athletes and management in this case---get away with earning millions by lying, cheating, bullying, tax evasion, blackmail, match fixing, etc.

But I sense that I may have just provided nourishment to something unworthy.

Yeah, of course, but what I would ask you--as a displaced academic--and ongoing intellectual is: where in the US did that not go on during that period on a massive basis? As intensified? No. Because of the nature of the endeavor.

But that doesn't mean it should be held up to such extreme standards without larger contextual revisions. Where are those things not going on now? Did the USADA's actions change that? No. Oops, sponsorship dollars lost. The sponsors are all above board of course.

Let's be clear: I don't, and have never cared about LA--probably having known about him as a teen cyclist for at least as long as you (and, as german descended--not caring)--but I don't think that making him the object of all that blame will eradicate the social conditions that brought him up. Mostly the opposite. And will only mutate them.

 

[aphronesis]

What soft power? The UCI supported the head of the U.S. Cycling federation's win at any cost operation. When it finally comes crashing down, then it's a political influence showdown and Wiesel and Armstrong won. No soft power there.

As to the tedious moral statements, it's not a sport if the federation is picking winners and not enforcing rules to make winners. That is entertainment. Except the federation is still trying to sell it as a sport.

If they give up the pretense it is a sport, then your criticism has some validity. Otherwise, you are changing the topic to make it agree with your world view.

No, once it left the world of sport and went federal and civic it stopped being strictly within your purview and entered a different world view. Marketing is one thing (of which you're versed) but there are other economies. Try to back down and enter into that conversation.

Soft power meant there was an incentive domestically to not impugn US "heroes" when the govt. wasn't exactly popular personally--here and abroad.

 

[TexPat]

Yeah, of course, but what I would ask you--as a displaced academic--and ongoing intellectual is: where in the US did that not go on during that period on a massive basis? As intensified? No. Because of the nature of the endeavor.

But that doesn't mean it should be held up to such extreme standards without larger contextual revisions.

Let's be clear: I don't, and have never cared about LA--probably having known about him as a teen cyclist for at least as long as you (and, as german descended--not caring)--but I don't think that making him the object of all that blame will eradicate the social conditions that brought him up.

I don't think he's the object of all the blame. He's just getting the press that he deserves. See the other bans for reference. There is more to come.

And as for soft power, LA had the following private telephone numbers in his cell phone:
1. Hein Verbruggen ( I overheard conversations btw the two on several occasions).
2. The POTUS
3. Thom Weisel
4. Steve Johnson

Now as a normal citizen, do you think it would be an example of soft power if I had the Prime Minister's private number, and could call him if I needed a little help with....say, noisy neighbours, or a wee problem with a positive test?

This is not about soft power at all. It's about corruption from the top down.
In a sick way, Lance would like to think it's all about him.

 

[rhubroma]

Of course, but many do. And there's the rub. (We'll disagree on the other. I can't see it differently and that's parcel with what I say below.)

That aside. There's an asymmetry of power set up between the juridical (and now civil), the spectacular and the monetary. All are interjoined of course, but what I've always felt gets lost in the more stark positions taken here are their interconnection.

Even the way--as Maxiton and I once discussed--that LA's ascendance had much to do with a soft power exercise of its time. Saying that means taking into account, contrarily to an extent, the federal case and its abandonment, but also, I think, qualifying all the tedious moral statements that get made daily on this topic.

Sure, just as were all the tedious moral statements we heard for years coming from the Armstrong camp. It works both ways, though one was pontificated from a pulpit fabricated by incontestable lies. The other from one constructed from demonstrable facts, which many were aware of even before Travis and USADA stole the show. For this reason, the merit is different for both.

At any rate the asymmetry you speak of isn't an invention of our times, which has perhaps only exacerbated it. Though I don't see any hope in the judicial system, which itself works upon specific cases that are what the micro is to the macro, in terms of the spectacular and monetary institutions within which those individual legal subjects pertain, solving this grave problem.

LA's ascendance absolutely was enhanced by the soft power exercised by both institutions, though he capitalized on it in ways that vivify the power that the spectacular and the monetary have in corrupting and distorting everything.

 

[aphronesis]

I don't think he's the object of all the blame. He's just getting the press that he deserves. See the other bans for reference. There is more to come.

And as for soft power, LA had the following private telephone numbers in his cell phone:
1. Hein Verbruggen ( I overheard conversations btw the two on several occasions).
2. The POTUS
3. Thom Weisel
4. Steve Johnson

Now as a normal citizen, do you think it would be an example of soft power if I had the Prime Minister's private number, and could call him if I needed a little help with....say, noisy neighbours, or a wee problem with a positive test?

This is not about soft power at all. It's about corruption from the top down.
In a sick way, Lance would like to think it's all about him.

Um, yeah, if you're a normal citizen with the phone number of the POTUS and not the head of a combatant nation, that's one highly working definition of soft power.

Soft power and corruption are not mutually incompatible. My argument from day one is that it exceeds this figure and sport and yet people attach universal claims and outcomes to the situation. A topic for another thread perhaps, but some call this a condition of Empire--and no wailing and moaning about this case will change the sport.

Nice of you to weigh in, but no one on the last several pages has been talking about his press (no one lucid anyway). That's not the issue under discussion.

You were wronged. (Most) everyone gets that. But the same things happen structurally everywhere. So because sport is visible if it's fixed with LA, do you think it will go away. Or he'll just pay? Which is it?

 

[aphronesis]

Sure, just as were all the tedious moral statements we heard for years coming from the Armstrong camp. It works both ways, though one was pontificated from a pulpit fabricated by incontestable lies. The other from one constructed from demonstrable facts, which many were aware of even before Travis and USADA stole the show. For this reason, the merit is different for both.

At any rate the asymmetry you speak of isn't an invention of our times, which has perhaps only exacerbated it. Though I don't see any hope in the judicial system, which itself works upon specific cases that are what the micro is to the macro, in terms of the spectacular and monetary institutions within which those individual legal subjects pertain, solving this grave problem.

LA's ascendance absolutely was enhanced by the soft power exercised by both institutions, though he capitalized on it in ways that vivify the power that the spectacular and the monetary have in corrupting and distorting everything.

Well, fine. But if you take soft power on board then media and mediatization (especially during those years) has to come with it.

So the argument is that the USADA only reinforced those conditions. Albeit in a more sober "austere" set of times.

As to your first, none of the longtime posters (anti Armstrong or otherwise) were repeating, rehearsing or duplicating those types of moral statements.

You know that absolution of the past is a modern invention and not realistic.

 

[TexPat]

Um, yeah, if you're a normal citizen with the phone number of the POTUS and not the head of a combatant nation, that's one highly working definition of soft power.

Soft power and corruption are not mutually incompatible. My argument from day one is that it exceeds this figure and sport and yet people attach universal claims and outcomes to the situation. A topic for another thread perhaps, but some call this a condition of Empire--and no wailing and moaning about this case will change the sport.

Nice of you to weigh in, but no one on the last several pages has been talking about his press (no one lucid anyway). That's not the issue under discussion.

You were wronged. (Most) everyone gets that. But the same things happen structurally everywhere. So because sport is visible if it's fixed with LA, do you think it will go away. Or he'll just pay? Which is it?

No, it won't go away, but a functional society should be one that seeks to correct problems.
Sport is a cultural reflection, as such the rules that govern should be adhered to, and corrections made where mandated. Seems pretty obvious.
We could allow all sports to be like WWF or cockfighting, but that would not go well, now would it? Why? Because most people believe that rules should be followed as they reflect society's principles.