Poll - Do you CARE if Lance doped?

Do you care if Lance doped?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
There have been quite a few polls in the Popular Press lately asking people if they believe Lance doped or not.

The results so far are typically 50% yes, 50% no.
But the "Yes" votes are bound to increase as more people become educated on the matter.

A question the polls fail to ask is "Do you care if Lance doped"
An interesting follow-up question would be "do you care?"

What do you guys/gals here in the Clinic think?
Do you care or not?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Polish said:
There have been quite a few polls in the Popular Press lately asking people if they believe Lance doped or not.

The results so far are typically 50% yes, 50% no.
But the "Yes" votes are bound to increase as more people become educated on the matter.

A question the polls fail to ask is "Do you care if Lance doped"
That is actually the more interesting question....

What do you guys/gals here in the Clinic think?
Do you care or not?
"The more interesting question" ..... so interesting you haven't even bothered to vote yourself, I think I will follow your lead.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
"The more interesting question" ..... so interesting you haven't even bothered to vote yourself, I think I will follow your lead.
Good point.
"more interesting" is probably not true.

How about "an interesting follow up question"?
Heck, I am going to edit my post. And vote too:)
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
But is it the "more interesting question"?

I don't feel it is more interesting and for these reasons:

1. Related to possible criminal, civil or sporting sanctions, "caring" does not matter. Changing the subject in order to avoid the biggest question is a transparent gambit.

2. It is the first step down the slippery slope of "good outweighing the transgressions" and that is also a fallacy. I see where could come to a the point where Lance can be martyred for the cancer contingent but it is an undeniable fallacy. He did not rob from the rich to help the poor, he marketing his fraud on the backs of cancer victims. False hope and false trust in the form of yellow jersey's and wristbands.

3. This goes beyond an emotional "caring" to the degree some are willing to accept negative things about people they admire. People still cheer for the Tiger Woods's, Kobe Bryant's and Michael Vick's of the world after they've paid (to a varying degree) for their transgressions. Let's see him indicted, on trial and fully expose what took place, then you can ask whether folks "care". My sense is people will care a lot more once they see the total view of the all-encompassing nature of the fraud, with all the players and extent to which they committed their crimes.

Colm.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
I voted no.

I'm not going to be upset if/when he goes down for it, but I enjoyed watching him ride, as much as I did with Indurain, Patani, Ulrich and others who I believe doped while putting forward those performances I enjoyed.

Their doping won't in any way impact how much I enjoyed watching the races 5+ years ago.

If he were going to be a major competitor in races going forward, I might care some.


I'm mildly interested in how he doped and why he may have been able to dope better then others. I'm interested in how he compares to others of the same period and if his doping program gave him enough more of an edge that his results should be overlooked in historical discussions about the sport. But I don't "care"... I'm not going to be bothered one way or another regardless of what the result is.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
BotanyBay said:
OK, who voted "no"? Polish?
I voted "no" as well. We have all been cheering doped riders for as long as we have been fans. For me that is since the late 60's. Some of the biggest hero's of the sport were the worst offenders of their era. How is it any different now?
 
Nov 17, 2010
12
0
0
Polish said:
Good point.
"more interesting" is probably not true.

How about "an interesting follow up question"?
Heck, I am going to edit my post. And vote too:)
If you are editing you should change it to

'' Do you care that Lance doped? ''

no ''if'' ;)
 
Jun 23, 2009
95
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
I voted "no" as well. We have all been cheering doped riders for as long as we have been fans. For me that is since the late 60's. Some of the biggest hero's of the sport were the worst offenders of their era. How is it any different now?
My thoughts exactly.
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
I voted "no" as well. We have all been cheering doped riders for as long as we have been fans. For me that is since the late 60's. Some of the biggest hero's of the sport were the worst offenders of their era. How is it any different now?
So you have no interest at all to know if Lance is lying or he actually beat all of those 'worst offenders' as you call them and is one of the best riders ever? If you saw an article today that read "Lance admits to doping" you would not read it? I know I would be interested.
 
Dec 1, 2010
51
0
0
I voted no in the sense that it doesn't matter to me who dopes. I don't like it, but it doesn't keep me up at night, no matter who.

But I do "care" in the context that cheaters and frauds need to be caught, exposed, and punished.

I could have voted yes in the same context and for the same reasons, but I wanted to swim upstream.
 
Dec 29, 2009
409
0
0
i don't care if any cyclist dopes. i think lance is an arrogant *** that needs his comeuppance. so i don't care if he doped but i would like to see him brought down a few pegs.

erader
 
Dec 4, 2010
98
0
0
Michael Brown said:
I voted no in the sense that it doesn't matter to me who dopes. I don't like it, but it doesn't keep me up at night, no matter who.

But I do "care" in the context that cheaters and frauds need to be caught, exposed, and punished.

I could have voted yes in the same context and for the same reasons, but I wanted to swim upstream.
probably have a difficult time getting up in the morning, don't you? decisions, decisions, decisions...
 
Dec 4, 2010
98
0
0
Frauds are cheaters, cheaters are thieves, and thieves need to be exposed and punished...very simply concept. people that don't care either way, IMO, have been influenced by the 'cult of personality' and would allow LA to get away with practically anything and everything, provided there was reasonable doubt...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Michael Brown said:
I voted no in the sense that it doesn't matter to me who dopes. I don't like it, but it doesn't keep me up at night, no matter who.

But I do "care" in the context that cheaters and frauds need to be caught, exposed, and punished.

I could have voted yes in the same context and for the same reasons, but I wanted to swim upstream.
Ding ding - I was just coming back here to post exactly that.

While I don't like it, I don't blame the athletes for doping when the system is complicit in ignoring the problem.
But those that do cheat should be caught and sanctioned accordingly - and I do care for the sport that it needs to tackle its problems to try to regain some sort of credibility.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Michael Brown said:
I voted no in the sense that it doesn't matter to me who dopes. I don't like it, but it doesn't keep me up at night, no matter who.

But I do "care" in the context that cheaters and frauds need to be caught, exposed, and punished.

I could have voted yes in the same context and for the same reasons, but I wanted to swim upstream.
I really should have voted NO for the same reasons.

It does not bother me that Eddy or Fausto or Sean or Anquetil or Big Mig or Marco or many other great cyclists doped.

And I certainly know that PEDS did NOT transform Lance lol.

The thing that bothers me about Lance doping is that it gives the haterz an excuse to deny Lance's awsomeness in the short term.

Long term legacy wise, Lance will be remembered as one of the all time great cyclist.
 
Dec 1, 2010
51
0
0
fujisst said:
probably have a difficult time getting up in the morning, don't you? decisions, decisions, decisions...
No, I had no trouble making the decision. I just went with my gut. I would have answered the same if any other rider had been the subject of the question.
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Polish said:
I really should have voted NO for the same reasons.

It does not bother me that Eddy or Fausto or Sean or Anquetil or Big Mig or Marco or many other great cyclists doped.

And I certainly know that PEDS did NOT transform Lance lol.

The thing that bothers me about Lance doping is that it gives the haterz an excuse to deny Lance's awsomeness in the short term.

Long term legacy wise, Lance will be remembered as one of the all time great cyclist.
Wow - you wrote the wrong question then. You asked "Do you care if Lance doped?". Care used as a transitive verb - interested in or concerned about. Sounds like you are definately interested in; thus, your answer was spot on.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
actually the real follow up question is whether people care that his doping is proved to the general public.

I don't "care" us such about Lance's doping because I know that he definitely did dope and have known it for a long time. I don't need to believe that he doped because its a plain fact.

The thing I care about is that there are so many people who have been brainwashed into thinking that Lance has never doped. What I care about is Lance admitting that he did it or having it conclusively proved in public that he is a liar.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
goober said:
So you have no interest at all to know if Lance is lying or he actually beat all of those 'worst offenders' as you call them and is one of the best riders ever? If you saw an article today that read "Lance admits to doping" you would not read it? I know I would be interested.
I'm not sure what your point is, so maybe you can expand on it. But the "no interest" thing is somewhat telling. Not sure where you got that, but my position for the record is:

Absolutley Lance doped, and he beat the "worst offenders" of his era while being one of them.

Is he "one of the best riders ever?" Absolutely as well! He is a genetic mutant built for the demands of cycling, just like Ullrich, Pantani, Vino, Basso, Contador and both Schlecks, all of whom raced every bit as well prepared as Lance.

I have been a fan for a long time and doping has existed for all of it. I continue to be amused that the problem is regarded as new, or solvable. In the immortal words of Jacque Anquetil, "only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water."

As to reading an article about Lance admitting to doping?... I would absolutely read that as well, but not because it is new information, only because it is something I firmly believe will never happen. If I am wrong... it will be that much better reading.
 
Dec 1, 2010
51
0
0
Another follow-up question would be to ask those who currently have a favorable opinion of LA if their opinion of him would change if they were presented with incontrovertible evidence that he lied and cheated. I wonder how many people would find a way to justify their continuing admiration for him in that situation?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Michael Brown said:
Another follow-up question would be to ask those who currently have a favorable opinion of LA if their opinion of him would change if they were presented with incontrovertible evidence that he lied and cheated. I wonder how many people would find a way to justify their continuing admiration for him in that situation?
There are PLENTY of people already who have a favorable opinion of Lance and think that he doped.

And among the so called "BrainWashed" people, plenty more will remain fans even when they learn more about Lance doping and pro cycling.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
Yes, personally I think the reason the sport is so ****ed is because of Lance. That's why i care that justice is done.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Michael Brown said:
Another follow-up question would be to ask those who currently have a favorable opinion of LA if their opinion of him would change if they were presented with incontrovertible evidence that he lied and cheated. I wonder how many people would find a way to justify their continuing admiration for him in that situation?
It is an interesting psychology that converts athletic achievements into personal admiration for an athlete. I have spent a long career in proximity to many professional, Olympic, and amateur athletes across a wide spectrum of sports, and I know two things absolutely in that regard:

Don't confuse what they have achieved in sport as any indication of who they are as a person.

And that the vast majority of athletes at the highest levels of fame in their particular sport are generally self absorbed misanthropes, (read: assholes) and to have achieved what they have, those qualities have been a necessary component of their personality and desire.

Many are great individuals and every bit who you would expect, and who their handlers project, them to be. I have met many who are, but most are not. Lance is a tool. Basso is a great guy, or at least those are the impressions that I came away with. They're both incredible riders, and they both doped. One of them will be well remembered and the other not. I know which is which for me, but the answer or someone else is what the definition of a FAN (root word: fanatic) is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY