LarryBudMelman
BANNED
- Aug 31, 2011
- 329
- 0
- 0
Nuts!
Nice justifications and I love the way you set them up!
Thanks for your insane definition of sanity and for providing us with your moral compass.
Your whole act makes sense now!
MarkvW said:There is going to come a time when people will take treatments or therapies that will dramatically improve the quality and duration of their life. Those treatments and therapies my have a side effect of dramatically improving the subject's sporting performance. No sane person would refuse such a treatment. Are we going to bar a person who receives such a treatment or therapy from sport? Are we going to sanction their behavior? Call it "wrong?" I make these points only in support of this position: Doping is wrong from a sporting point of view only insofar as it is cheating. From the sporting point of view it is no more or less wrong than vinokouroving a race.
Bike racing is complicated. On the one hand, there are the written rules of the sport. In my moral universe (as a fan), the inquiry ends there. But there are other rules in the sport--the 'unwritten law' of the peloton and the business of pro cycling as it is (questionably) practiced by the UCI. Anybody who wants to cycle as a pro has to balance all three 'laws'--definitely if they want any success, and often even if they want to participate at all.
I view European pro bike racing as a filthy circus, where the results mean nothing and the only value is the momentary pleasure of the race and the fun of watching all the antidoping drama. If the UCI imploded tomorrow, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Some new cycling circus would replace it . . ..
But if (unlike me) you really care about pro cycling, you have to be sympathetic to the plight of the riders. You are supporting a doped up filthy circus! I don't mean to criticize that support at all--I just mean that it is hypocritical and cruel to focus hate on riders (and spouses) who have to contend with both the written and unwittten rules of a sport that you so ardently support and care for. If it weren't for the support of the fans, would-be pro bike racers wouldn't ever be in a position to make the ethical choices compelled by the written and unwritten rules of pro cycling. With very rare exceptions, the racers are mere pawns--and not very highly paid pawns, at that.
Attacking Ms. Andreu for her choice of spouse is particularly vicious. Such a gutter attack is disgusting. But she has left herself wide open to legitimate challenge.
Nice justifications and I love the way you set them up!
Thanks for your insane definition of sanity and for providing us with your moral compass.
Your whole act makes sense now!

