Pharmstrong Rhetorical Strategy

[DirtyWorks]

Prior to the SI article, the newspeak the Pharmstrong faithful were using "never tested positive", and, "most tested" newspeak.

After the SI article, the tactics have changed.

-He might have taken drugs, but so did the others.
The response is "The problem with giving an out is it enables the behavior. Condones it too." If he took PED's then sanctions should follow just like the others. A morals-based reply is to ask how much cheating is okay? Doping kids? (Chris Carmichael, Rene Wenzel, Greg Strock, etc) Misdemeanor? Felony?

There's an especially crafty variation on this one where Armstrong is the anti-hero. The hooker with a heart of gold in a den of liars and thieves. I'm the most worried about this angle taking off. It captures the imagination.

-He's only one rider.... followed by varied pleas for sympathy.
This is a coward's excuse. There were a number of riders who really, actually were 'only a rider' and tried to come clean anyway. Use Bassons and Simeoni as examples.

Obvious variations on ..... But .....
This one is especially influential because on its face, it conceeds a point in your favor only to take it back. A good answer is, "there is no but."

Credible proof
The reply is to ask for a definition of 'credible proof'. Keep on this one because a weak thinker will be in panic mode and throw up all kinds of junky opinion. Don't rebut the junk. Keep asking for what would satisfy the commenter as 'credible proof.'

Good Deeds
This one is already common because it allows the myth to stand and usually includes a tacit 'we all cheat a little...' The way to rebut it is to ask if the SEC should have allowed Bernard Madoff to take people's money because of all the non-profit donations he made and people he employed. Remind the cult member that dope-free riders had their years of honest, dope-free work taken from them by a guy that required his team to dope turning the whole team into cheaters. This appeals to everyone's sense that they are good and the ensuing internal conflict, "I'm good, but Armstrong's not any more." should set off more panic replies filled with nonsense. Just stick with the original idea. Credit goes to Granville57 for this one.

I usually close with a sympathetic "I'm sorry you were mislead. Tailwind and Lance are frauds."

What am I missing?

 

[Benotti69]

Pharmastrong = Dead Man Walking

 

[SC1990]

Any evidence for any of that?

 

[Iker_Baqueiro]

Pharmastrong = Dead Man Walking

You got that right. LAnce is going down. The writing is on the wall.

 

[sniper]

Any evidence for any of that?

If the writing's on the wall, all one needs is to be able to read.

 

[SC1990]

If the writing's on the wall, all one needs is to be able to read.

Yes, and I'm asking where I should be reading to find these comments as I do not know where to look.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, and I'm asking where I should be reading to find these comments as I do not know where to look.

to paraphrase Jan Ullrich, if you cant read 2+2 then i cannot help you.

 

[SC1990]

to paraphrase Jan Ullrich, if you cant read 2+2 then i cannot help you.

Well sorry, but unfortunately I only use this cycling forum. I don't see why you have to be such a pretentious a-hole when all I'm asking for is some sites where the type of thing the OP claims is going on, as I'm pretty sure I won't get many returns if I put 'pharmstrong rhetorical technique' etc into google. Is it really so hard just to point out a couple of websites, or is the whole thing just being made up?

 

[Benotti69]

Well sorry, but unfortunately I only use this cycling forum. I don't see why you have to be such a pretentious a-hole when all I'm asking for is some sites where the type of thing the OP claims is going on, as I'm pretty sure I won't get many returns if I put 'pharmstrong rhetorical technique' etc into google. Is it really so hard just to point out a couple of websites, or is the whole thing just being made up?

Humour not pretensions

i think if you do a good search on the recent threads about Armstrong you will see they have been poppin up as members have posted them pointing out the changing rhetoric from the Armstrong camp.

it is most obvious from his fans that post on here on a very regular basis, some like Flicker and Polish have changed their rhetoric considerably even since i have been posting. Very amusing to see it evolve or devolve depending on your point of view.

 

[Granville57]

Any evidence for any of that?

When I first read your above post, I thought you were maybe looking for evidence of LA having doped.

all I'm asking for is some sites where the type of thing the OP claims is going on, as I'm pretty sure I won't get many returns if I put 'pharmstrong rhetorical technique' etc into google. Is it really so hard just to point out a couple of websites, or is the whole thing just being made up?

But if, by your second post, you are looking for links that illustrate the media spin machine, this earlier thread might be a good jumping off point:

Noticing more of these cropping up. The same talking points, the same rationalizers and apologists line of thought.

I submit we track these and cross reference how many repeat, word for work, the line by line repetition that surely is being shuffled out by the PS spin machine.

Here are the ones I have found but there are others in current threads. Add yours so we can being to assemble the common themes.

http://www.statepress.com/2011/01/20/devil-dish-jan-21/

http://kevin-blackistone.fanhouse.com/2011/01/20/lance-armstrongs-big-win-not-on-bike/

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2011/01/20/lets_end_the_lance_armstrong_witch_hunt.php

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-problem-with-the-lance-armstrong-doping-investigation-2011-1

http://www.cbssports.com/general/st...ood-works-matter-above-all-else-even-steroids

Truly an amazing exercise in mobilizing the press and blogosphere in an effort to wage damage control. Sorry it won't work, too tough to get traction when your wheels are spinning in axle deep allegations of the felonious nature.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Check the VN story comments on Pharmstrong's press conference at the Tour Down Under. There's one story in particular where VN quotes the back-and-forth between the reporters and their imperial leader.

You'll find numerous examples of the spin machine in action in the comments. Some of them are truly remarkable in the level of pretending required to keep all of the lies in a vaguely coherent narrative.

Found it: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...address-sports-illustrated-allegations_155995

 

[Granville57]

Check the VN story comments on Pharmstrong's press conference at the Tour Down Under. There's one story in particular where VN quotes the back-and-forth between the reporters and their imperial leader.

You'll find numerous examples of the spin machine in action in the comments. Some of them are truly remarkable in the level of pretending required to keep all of the lies in a vaguely coherent narrative.

Found it: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...address-sports-illustrated-allegations_155995

Yeah the comments get pretty ridiculous. I still jump into the fray over there from time to time, but it's always interesting to see how many new posters suddenly appear on the hot LA articles. It just becomes mayhem. I'm always amused when an argument between two people gets reduced to just a narrow vertical column as each response gets indented to the right.

The headlines on this page are pretty disturbing with all the counter-links to the SI story.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...to-armstrong-allegations_156407#disqus_thread

 

[SC1990]

Thanks guys, just wanted to see, that's all. Couldn't find any evidence of it on here, so was mildy suspicious. But now there's some evidence, I'm less so. Cheers.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The headlines on this page are pretty disturbing with all the counter-links to the SI story.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...to-armstrong-allegations_156407#disqus_thread

VN is counter-spin central. When something negative appears in the mainstream media, Pat gets an interview just days later. I was a very longtime subscriber to the dead-tree version (~25 years) until this year's discovery they were deleting perfectly harmless comments that described the UCI's doping program.

 

[thehog]

Yeah the comments get pretty ridiculous. I still jump into the fray over there from time to time, but it's always interesting to see how many new posters suddenly appear on the hot LA articles. It just becomes mayhem. I'm always amused when an argument between two people gets reduced to just a narrow vertical column as each response gets indented to the right.

The headlines on this page are pretty disturbing with all the counter-links to the SI story.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...to-armstrong-allegations_156407#disqus_thread

I love it!

If those of us who watched Lance during his early recovery days, and particularly in the 1999-2000 Tours, are unable to recall how rail thin his face and upper body appeared most of that time, in contrast to his heavier, more filled-out facial and upper body appearances, as in the post-race winner's interview after Fleche Wallone (pre-cancer... 1996?), maybe it might help to reconsider this striking physical transformation,
but perhaps rather than as some strange indication of steroid or HGH use, perhaps being more typical of dramatic body changes following tissue-wasting chemo treatments and surgery, not to mention stress, fear of dying, worrying about what kind of life you may have left, and/or the medically-prescribed drug effects that cummulatively all add to the body's desperate need to adapt and compensate. To consider that many steroids and HGH really build up and increase muscular size, density, and strength, while usually adding notable bulk and girth increases at the same time, one might ask whether Lance's more notable and quite dramatic weight losses in his upper body and face, particularly during and after his post-cancer treatments, are more likely representative of the deleterious effects of his life-threatening struggle against a virulent disease, or conversely, some kind of covert strength ritual that might have included PEDs? When you've barely survived the worst that life can throw at you, and you've come to cherish life in ways you'd never have imagined, why would you risk damaging your health further or taking unnecessary chances thereafter? I for one would rather give Lance the benefit of the doubt. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[SC1990]

I love it!

If those of us who watched Lance during his early recovery days, and particularly in the 1999-2000 Tours, are unable to recall how rail thin his face and upper body appeared most of that time, in contrast to his heavier, more filled-out facial and upper body appearances, as in the post-race winner's interview after Fleche Wallone (pre-cancer... 1996?), maybe it might help to reconsider this striking physical transformation,
but perhaps rather than as some strange indication of steroid or HGH use, perhaps being more typical of dramatic body changes following tissue-wasting chemo treatments and surgery, not to mention stress, fear of dying, worrying about what kind of life you may have left, and/or the medically-prescribed drug effects that cummulatively all add to the body's desperate need to adapt and compensate. To consider that many steroids and HGH really build up and increase muscular size, density, and strength, while usually adding notable bulk and girth increases at the same time, one might ask whether Lance's more notable and quite dramatic weight losses in his upper body and face, particularly during and after his post-cancer treatments, are more likely representative of the deleterious effects of his life-threatening struggle against a virulent disease, or conversely, some kind of covert strength ritual that might have included PEDs? When you've barely survived the worst that life can throw at you, and you've come to cherish life in ways you'd never have imagined, why would you risk damaging your health further or taking unnecessary chances thereafter? I for one would rather give Lance the benefit of the doubt. Is that so difficult to understand?

Nah mate. All that was like, the Armstrong media conspiracy machine photoshopping every image of him taken just to make it look that way.

 

[warmfuzzies]

I suggest Armstrong use the tainted steak defense. Just like the Jedi mind trick, this instantly convinces at least half who listen.

 

[Shortleg]

Courier Mail post Twitter Ride 24 january

In the Queensland Courier Mail today Armstrong has further finessed the rhetoric:

"Commenting about a US Anti-Doping Authority inquiry into allegations raised recently in US magazine Sports Illustrated, Armstrong wrote: ""Great to hear that USADA is investigating some of SI's claims. I look forward to being vindicated." When the reporter mentioned the Tweet, Armstrong - still seated on his bike - snapped: "I'm not talking about that," and rode straight past a television news crew waiting to tape a pre-arranged interview, got into his car and headed to the airport for a flight to New Zealand.
Brisbane-born McEwen, who had asked Armstrong to take part in the ride, reacted angrily, telling the reporter it was "not the day" to ask such a question."

I wonder if there was a crowd at the airport waving him goodbye. And whether he may catch up with a certain mechanic whilst in New Zealand...

 

[Sanitiser]

Before it was always a categorical denial e.g. never tested positive, most tested athlete, Floyd is a liar etc. Now it's no comment.
Probably has some legal significance now.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Update

This was new and relevant to the original thread, so I thought I'd add it.

Embark upon a campaign of ad hominems and specious arguments aimed not at the thread topic, but at an individual or group of posters. An attack on the perceived ideology behind a post, not the substance of the post. Then when things get sticky, a fall back to the classic "by the way" comment in an attempt to suggest you were in agreement all along, or simply misunderstood.

"By the way, I believe Tyler."

"By the way, I think Armstrong doped."

"By the way, I think Floyd is teling the truth this time."

"By the way, I really don't think Betsy's a bad person."

"Why don't you guys just go ride your bikes?"

The list is long and distinguished...

Mac Roadie's original post should be here:http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=559124#post559124

 

[Benotti69]

By the way, good work DirtyWorks

 

[MacRoadie]

By the way, good work DirtyWorks

Hey, credit where credit's due...

 

[Benotti69]

Hey, credit where credit's due...

By the way, all credit is due to MacRoadie, who i dont believe doped.....



ya happy now......

 

[Cloxxki]

Credits are worthless in professional cycling.
It's all about credit Suisse.