Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Louison]

No, I don't get it because your responses are of a personal nature and do not offer an alternative to what I say.

So you feel my responses are all personal (which you complain about but then do the same thing you claim I am doing) and that prevents you from understanding the two extremes in this topic???? I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you are making it difficult.(I suppose I could be like your buddies and just insult you...but I won't)

So, the good things he has done, revolve around his cancer work?
He has profited from that, so i do not really give him much credit for that - as for inspiring, his inspiration was because he came back from cancer and beat everyone while clean and never taking drugs......

Ah now we get to the heart of the matter, the only things that count as good are things that you can't figure out a way to connect to doping. Ok, I get it, you are comfortable staying in your current place. It's tough leaving your comfort zone, I thought since you seem to be trying to have an actual discussion and not try just trying to bully people that you might be willing. Alas I was wrong.

C'est la vie.

 

[aphronesis]

I said he was suspicious at that time - his book was a way to read his story - which was a lie, a work of fiction.

Basically anyone who bought that book and quotes any part of it, his cancer work, athletic ability )or being a National TT champion on a 40 mile course etc) as a reason to defend him has been fooled.

If it had been sold as a work of fiction then that would be fine, it wasn't so he defrauded those who bought his story.

Ok, but then if this has to be a case shouldn't it be one about the rights and responsibilities of individuals who become institutions.

And according to your definition above, are you not ultimately defending the LA supporters even as you're arguing against them?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Gotten a little too weird here with the detractors and boosterists.

I don't have an i-phone, and don't post off one. But thanks for putting me in with Louison.

A simple mistake which has been corrected.

 

[MarkvW]

Sorry, haven't been here in a while.

Any news on the state of the investigation? Is the grand jury in L.A. still looking at L.A.?

Grand Jury still on. No indication who they have been talking to recently.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you feel my responses are all personal (which you complain about but then do the same thing you claim I am doing) and that prevents you from understanding the two extremes in this topic???? I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you are making it difficult.(I suppose I could be like your buddies and just insult you...but I won't)

Yes, yours are personal - you continue to accuse me of insulting you. Me pointing out that I haven't is not making it personal - I have not called you names.

Can you point out where I have insulted you??
because if you accuse me again I will be left with no alternative but to report it.

Ah now we get to the heart of the matter, the only things that count as good are things that you can't figure out a way to connect to doping. Ok, I get it, you are comfortable staying in your current place. It's tough leaving your comfort zone, I thought since you seem to be trying to have an actual discussion and not try just trying to bully people that you might be willing. Alas I was wrong.

C'est la vie.

The only reason you are wrong is that none of the things that you said make him a "great person" - alas he profits from his cancer work and anything else you brought up is hardly exceptional - if you have something else to portay him as a great person please feel free to point it out.

 

[Louison]

Yes, yours are personal - you continue to accuse me of insulting you. Me pointing out that I haven't is not making it personal - I have not called you names.

Can you point out where I have insulted you??
because if you accuse me again I will be left with no alternative but to report it.


The only reason you are wrong is that none of the things that you said make him a "great person" - alas he profits from his cancer work and anything else you brought up is hardly exceptional - if you have something else to portay him as a great person please feel free to point it out.

Last response for a while as my son just got up from his nap, so we are going skiing!

On the first part I suggest you read what I wrote as I did not say you insulted me. You did spend an entire to me saying "You..." and I called you on it but you conveniently ignored it. In other words you have made it personal just as much as you claim I have.

On the second part it's clear that you have your mind made up and nothing will dissuade you...even if it means coming up with excuses why something isn't a good thing.

Enjoy your afternoon or evening, wherever you live and know I am disappointed that you choose to not leave the extreme and give reality a try.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok, but then if this has to be a case shouldn't it be one about the rights and responsibilities of individuals who become institutions.

And according to your definition above, are you not ultimately defending the LA supporters even as you're arguing against them?

I have read this twice - i have no idea what any of the above means.
Whose rights, whose responsibilities, what institutions??

Nor do I understand what you mean about "LA supporters" - most who bought the myth have now left, they moved on quietly. Even his "supporters" here admit he is a doper, cheat and a liar
(Now we are discussing the definition of fraud!!! How the mighty has fallen)

 

[180mmCrank]

I guess it is the nature of this kind of discussion... no one side is ever going to persuade the other side that they are wrong. And in fact the more they try the more they just entrench their different positions.

It seems inevitable that in their frustration they resort to making it personal.

Despite this being somewhat inevitable can we try to keep the argument civil.

Thank you.

Ps Anyone considered the possibility that you are both wrong? (or right?) Real life is kind of funny that way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Last response for a while as my son just got up from his nap, so we are going skiing!

On the first part I suggest you read what I wrote as I did not say you insulted me. You did spend an entire to me saying "You..." and I called you on it but you conveniently ignored it. In other words you have made it personal just as much as you claim I have.

I responded to you personally, as you wrote it - I did not make it personal, indeed I requested you talk about Armstrong, not me or other posters.

On the second part it's clear that you have your mind made up and nothing will dissuade you...even if it means coming up with excuses why something isn't a good thing.

Enjoy your afternoon or evening, wherever you live and know I am disappointed that you choose to not leave the extreme and give reality a try.

If they were excuse and false, I would expect you to correct me.
I am quite open to having my opinion challenged or changed, which is why I ask questions.
You are free to point out where I my opinion is wrong. (but not to just label me a hater, because I do not agree with yours - thats the difference)

 

[aphronesis]

I have read this twice - i have no idea what any of the above means.
Whose rights, whose responsibilities, what institutions??

Nor do I understand what you mean about "LA supporters" - most who bought the myth have now left, they moved on quietly. Even his "supporters" here admit he is a doper, cheat and a liar
(Now we are discussing the definition of fraud!!! How the mighty has fallen)

Ok. Let's go slower. Seems to be that time of day. Or night I guess. Anyone writing an autobiography is engaging in fiction. Period. Anyone buying such a book with beliefs to the contrary is stupid. Full stop. The contradiction here is that LA was not only a celebrity, but belonged to an organization and profession with certain regulations (unlike, say, the screen actors guild).

Cyclists buying the book had a suspicion that he was cheating. Non-cyclists buying the book because he was suddenly a "household" name, merit no consideration.

It's easy to see the various, uninteresting, levels of his life: organizational, familial, athletic, professional and that they would be kept separate is obvious.

I'm asking who you're arguing for? You knew it wasn't true. So who are you defending?

As to supporters, mighty, and all the rest, I refer strictly to this thread.

 

[Race Radio]

Despite this being somewhat inevitable can we try to keep the argument civil.

Could you refresh me on what exactly the argument is?

So far all I see is someone claiming that no matter what illegal, immoral, or socially reprehensible actions Armstrong does he is above question and we should all go ride our bikes and wear yellow.

 

[doolols]

Ps Anyone considered the possibility that you are both wrong? (or right?) Real life is kind of funny that way.

Yep. It's a distinct possibility. Life tends to be various shades of grey, rather than pure black or brightest white.

What I have noticed is that the overtly pro-Armstrong people tend to take issue with a statement, and then turn it into a personal pi$$ing contest. They seem to take issue with other posters, such that anti-Armstrong-ers spend all their time arguing the toss over who said what and why and to whom, and lose sight of the purpose of this thread.

 

[aphronesis]

Could you refresh me on what exactly the argument is?

So far all I see is someone claiming that no matter what illegal, immoral, or socially reprehensible actions Armstrong does he is above question and we should all go ride our bikes and wear yellow.

Hope you're not trying to attribute that to me; because I've said or suggested none of those things. I'm asking for the damage to be made specific.

And all of the talking points in your infinite number of posts are no more in depth or useful than those you slag off.

 

[Benotti69]

Yep. It's a distinct possibility. Life tends to be various shades of grey, rather than pure black or brightest white.

What I have noticed is that the overtly pro-Armstrong people tend to take issue with a statement, and then turn it into a personal pi$$ing contest. They seem to take issue with other posters, such that anti-Armstrong-ers spend all their time arguing the toss over who said what and why and to whom, and lose sight of the purpose of this thread.

there has been little of 'interest' to appear in the media or internet recently in relation to Armstrong.

The reason this thread remains at the top of the Clinic is because of posters coming in and posting the obvious " i am not a fan of armstrong beleve he doped but he is not a fraud" trying to save the Brand from being smeared as they cannot do anything about his career anymore. That has been decided, there is more than enough evidence of his doping, from failed tets(albeit backdated TUE) to the 6 positives to eye witness testimony.

So what's left, well the 'brand' is to be protected with damage limitation and make out Armstrong was doing what everyone else did and he had no choice but to and he did it for those who suffer....

Race radio hit it on the head

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok. Let's go slower. Seems to be that time of day. Or night I guess. Anyone writing an autobiography is engaging in fiction. Period. Anyone buying such a book with beliefs to the contrary is stupid. Full stop. The contradiction here is that LA was not only a celebrity, but belonged to an organization and profession with certain regulations (unlike, say, the screen actors guild).

Cyclists buying the book had a suspicion that he was cheating. Non-cyclists buying the book because he was suddenly a "household" name, merit no consideration.

It's easy to see the various, uninteresting, levels of his life: organizational, familial, athletic, professional and that they would be kept separate is obvious.

I'm asking who you're arguing for? You knew it wasn't true. So who are you defending?

As to supporters, mighty, and all the rest, I refer strictly to this thread.

The highlighted is where you are wrong, I have already said this - so I don't see why you continue the point.

I had a suspicion about him, nothing more - I bought his book hoping to get a better understanding and insight in to his story and like most unless it was shown to be wrong had no basis not to accept it at face value.
Obviously most autobiographies can embellish a story or completely avoid or skip over a period of the persons life.
However, with Armstrong there is a lot in the book that was complete fabrication.

 

[MarkvW]

Could you refresh me on what exactly the argument is?

So far all I see is someone claiming that no matter what illegal, immoral, or socially reprehensible actions Armstrong does he is above question and we should all go ride our bikes and wear yellow.

Yes, I'm sure that Louison said that if Armstrong goes out and commits mass murder ("no matter what illegal . . ."), that we should all go ride our bikes and wear yellow. Why falsely miscast his argument? Why can't you address it on its own terms?

 

[aphronesis]

The highlighted is where you are wrong, I have already said this - so I don't see why you continue the point.

I had a suspicion about him, nothing more - I bought his book hoping to get a better understanding and insight in to his story and like most unless it was shown to be wrong had no basis not to accept it at face value.
Obviously most autobiographies can embellish a story or completely avoid or skip over a period of the persons life.
However, with Armstrong there is a lot in the book that was complete fabrication.

No, I'm not wrong. It is exactly right. Over time your knowledge of the situation has changed. Do you want your ten dollars back? You bought a book. It has nothing to do with racing. Are you upset about the races you watched. Or the book? Both? Did you not know that cyclists had enhanced their performances before?

And, on a separate tack, what part of celebrity life from the Armstrong era has not been fabrication?

What are you defending here?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I'm not wrong. It is exactly right. Over time your knowledge of the situation has changed.
Do you want your ten dollars back? You bought a book. It has nothing to do with racing. Are you upset about the races you watched. Or the book? Both? Did you not know that cyclists had enhanced their performances before?

You complained upthread that someone may have attributed something to you that you did not say - what has any of the above got to do with my point?
No, I do not want the money back - but his book was a lie, and from that he got the goodwill and big deals - thats fraud.

And, on a separate tack, what part of celebrity life from the Armstrong era has not been fabrication?

What are you defending here?

I am not defending anything - you asked for my opinion, that is what I gave - Armstrong is a cheat, liar and a fraud that was my point.

You appear to be the one defending Armstrong by trying to suggest that everyones autobiography is a fraud.

 

[Race Radio]

Hope you're not trying to attribute that to me; because I've said or suggested none of those things. I'm asking for the damage to be made specific.

And all of the talking points in your infinite number of posts are no more in depth or useful than those you slag off.

What do you mean "Damage made specific"?

Ahhh, more of the blanket insult. The better idea would be to respond to a specific post or topic of mine that you disagree with, is that too much to ask?

 

[aphronesis]

You complained upthread that someone may have attributed something to you that you did not say - what has any of the above got to do with my point?
No, I do not want the money back - but his book was a lie, and from that he got the goodwill and big deals - thats fraud.


I am not defending anything - you asked for my opinion, that is what I gave - Armstrong is a cheat, liar and a fraud that was my point.

You appear to be the one defending Armstrong by trying to suggest that everyones autobiography is a fraud.

It's no fun when you make this slow. I thought you enjoyed this for other reasons. Again, how much existing goodwill and big deals are external to fraud? Why should anyone care about him? Because of disgruntled cycling fans?

That's a wild argument to suggest that I'm defending Armstrong by way of suggesting that autobiographies are fiction. Back in the day they called that postmodern relativism.

Back to our argument last month, who knowing history of the UCI and cycling is going to sit around grumpy if LA was not upfront about his enhancement.

I'll ask this one more time: whose chastity are you defending? to what ends?

yours? mayos? ullrich's?

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, I'm sure that Louison said that if Armstrong goes out and commits mass murder ("no matter what illegal . . ."), that we should all go ride our bikes and wear yellow. Why falsely miscast his argument? Why can't you address it on its own terms?

I made no mention of Mass murder, however nice strawman.

Perhaps you could explain the argument? Please use the simplest possible terms as my brain is not working well after today's ride...and I am kinda dumb to begin with

 

[aphronesis]

What do you mean "Damage made specific"?

Ahhh, more of the blanket insult. The better idea would be to respond to a specific post or topic of mine that you disagree with, is that too much to ask?

Don't be silly. Your posts lump vast peoples into categories. "Groupies" would be the most ready example. So leave off the blanket insult.

Damage made specific. Is that hard? Who is being compensated? What exactly were the losses? To cycling? To its fans? etc.

 

[180mmCrank]

Could you refresh me on what exactly the argument is?
snip

I was thinking of argument as a verb (the act of arguing) rather than the noun.

But I agree the argument (noun) seems to get lost or at least diluted in the telling - the telling never seems to diminish in its volume and voracity.

 

[Race Radio]

Don't be silly. Your posts lump vast peoples into categories. "Groupies" would be the most ready example. So leave off the blanket insult.

Damage made specific. Is that hard? Who is being compensated? What exactly were the losses? To cycling? To its fans? etc.

I will ask again, what topic is it exactly that I have written that you disagree with? I am sure you can come up with many examples....This would be a more constructive way to engage then essentially saying everything I write sucks

Sorry, I am still confused by what you mean by "Damages made specific" Are you saying that enforcement of rules is only needed if someone is damaged?

 

[Race Radio]

I was thinking of argument as a verb (the act of arguing) rather than the noun.

But I agree the argument (noun) seems to get lost or at least diluted in the telling - the telling never seems to diminish in its volume and voracity.

Thanks, I thought it was just me that was confused

We should all start using bullet points.