Betsy Keeps Pulling Lance's Short Hairs

On 9/15/2010 9:08 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:33 pm, wrote:
On 9/15/2010 4:15 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
[snip]



Sports is entertainment. I don't see the law stepping
in to settle disputes between Madonna and Lady Gaga.

Fredmaster Ben

Sports is indeed entertainment. It is also very big business. Madonna
has sued people. Lady Gaga will if she hasn't already. The law steps
into disputes between entertainers all the time. Some of them even face
criminal charges and go to prison. BTW, how's OJ doing?

Now, are you really such a big ****Tard or are you just trolling mtb dad?

What does OJ have to do with this?

The law is used to settle disputes in the entertainment
_business_ all the time. Contract disputes, royalties,
plagiarism, etc. That's appropriate. (Before someone
points out that the USPS "fraud" issue is a contract dispute,
let me say that neither party: USPS nor Tailwind, has
alleged fraud. If USPS was not a government agency
that part of the investigation would never have got off
the ground.)

The law has generally not gotten involved when something
happens that's "inside the lines" of entertainment, so to
speak - for example, Madonna hasn't sued Gaga for being
a blond chick who changes her appearance every few weeks,
and nobody filed charges against Kanye West for interrupting
the music awards.

Similarly, I don't think the law should be used to criminalize
an action when the main effect of the action is to break an
inside-the-lines rule that is not generally prosecuted when
it happens outside the context of sports. So I don't think
"sporting fraud" like in the Italian law is a real crime, unless
there was match-fixing and gambling attached (which is not
what the Italian law or the Dopestrong investigation is about).

Of course, it is illegal to procure drugs without a prescription,
but if they aren't going to prosecute possession at the
local Gold's Gym I don't think they should prosecute someone
for possession just because he is a $12K dreamer.
Prosecuting an athlete or coach for distribution would be more
legit since they do also prosecute regular civilians for
distribution.

Your insistence on labeling anyone who disagrees with
you a ****tard is symptomatic of why these sports rivalries
shouldn't be criminalized, in a way. The intense likes and
dislikes that fans have are not compatible with settling
disagreements via the legal system.

Fredmaster Ben

You are a total ****Tard because you just repeated the arguments that I
made refutung your half-assed attempt to make it appear that there is no
value going after Lance/doping because all of this is just
entertainment. It's that, business and more as mtbdad has pointed out
to you.

Here's an example of a statement so absurd that only a ****Tard could
make it.

"Your insistence on labeling anyone who disagrees with
you a ****tard is symptomatic of why these sports rivalries
shouldn't be criminalized, in a way."

Congratulations. You wrote it.

On 9/15/2010 9:19 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote:
On 9/15/2010 4:45 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 9/15/2010 3:33 PM, BLafferty wrote:
BTW, how's OJ doing?

I believe he still has his Heisman. If some of his offenses
were worth a 10 minute time penalty then you'd be on the
mark. Dumbass.

Fred Flintstein

You are aware that OJ, the sportsman/actor/entertainer, is sitting in
a Nevada prison doing very heavy time, right?

Dumbass,

Yellow line violation?

Fred Flintstein

Depends on how you define yellow line.

Both defendants, Clarence Stewart and O.J. Simpson, were convicted on
Oct. 3, 2008, in Las Vegas, Nevada, of the following charges: (Simpson
sentencing in parenthesis)

* Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit a Crime (1 year, concurrent)
* Count 2: Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping (12–48 months, concurrent)
* Count 3: Conspiracy to Commit Robbery (12-48, concurrent)
* Count 4: Burglary while in Possession of a Deadly Weapon (26–120
months, concurrent)
* Count 5: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce
Fromong) (15 years, possibility of parole in 5, concurrent, with 12–72
months consecutively)
* Count 6: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon
(Alfred Beardsley) (15 years, possibility of parole in 5, concurrent,
with 12–72 months consecutively)
* Count 7: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong)
(60–180 months concurrent with 12–72 months consecutive)
* Count 8: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley)
(60–180 months concurrent with 12–72 months consecutive)
* Count 9: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong) (18–72
months consecutive with count 8)
* Count 10: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley) (18–72
months consecutive with count 9)


He has a minimum of 9 years before possible parole and has a maximum
sentence of 33 years.

On Sep 15, 6:20*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
Methinks thou dost protest too much.

What is that supposed to be? *An accusation?
Why don't you just come out and say it if you
want to make it about that. *Do you think everyone
who disagrees with you does so because they
have a guilty conscience? *Do you think no one
is capable of making a principled objection to
your position?

An ad hominem against Brian Lafferty is a principled objection to an
argument? *I wrote that to: "At least Lafferty has given up on the
anti-dope pretense - he just wants to see Armstrong rot in prison, and
after that we can all be see-no-evil monkeys." *Why so mad at an
internet poster then?. *I withdraw it if you were doing more than
slamming him.

It's not an ad hominem. *I've asked Lafferty several
times how the Dopestrong investigation of actions
taken several years ago and old USPS contracts
is going to reduce the incidence of doping. *Or what he's
going to do when LANCE goes to Sing Sing and there
is still doping. *He has never answered.

An ad hominem "is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a
characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem` You could just say what you
did here, and remind him each time he posts he hasn't answered.

Btw, can I answer the question? I think the investigation and
penalities will serve as a deterrent to both participants and
sponsors. Btw, I think that is a good question. Maybe we can talk
more about that. It's a bit hidden in the 'not the FDA's business'
chatter.

Your "methinks thou dost protest too much" doesn't
make sense as a response to my characterization
of Lafferty. *Typically when one says that, one is implying
that a person is making too much noise, to cover up
being guilty of something[*]. *What are you trying to imply?
Step up and say it clearly. *No candyassing around.
Is this the strength of character that you learned
from sports?

Wikipedia on the 'methinks' quote: "Someone who is assuring too much
is usually lying either to herself or to the audience.".
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations. That's what I
meant, since I have no idea who you are or what you have done. But
attacking BL instead of arguing that the Lance investigation will have
no effect on doping is certainly off the mark, if not lying. Could be
I'm just new to RBR ettiquette though.

BTW, your psychoanalysis of my sports = entertainment
comment is humorous.

Glad to be of entertainment value.

Is that supposed to indicate that sports is more
important to our nations' characters than music or art?


More important? That's another question, but it's certainly
different. Morals and ethics are pretty wrapped up in sport because,
well, they have rules and officials and most people seem to think
those are important. Music or art are, well, art, and evaluated on
more subjective criteria than the objective ones in most sport. (Even
figure skating has codes that rate jumps and falls, for example.)
Never seen a sportsmanship award in a dance show. But as art
approaches sport, say, in ballroom dancing, unethical behaviour does
arise and is frowned upon.

It could equally well mean that our nations have some
seriously screwed up values about what they consider
important.

That's a good question too. Maybe we could chat about whether sport
can do anything but push the best over the brink of ethical behaviour;
win at all costs sort of thing. But for the time being, for me, the
original Latin meaning of compete, compete to strive together,
explains why it works. It makes us try hard. Every parent can see it
when their kid is in the right competitive environment. Makes them
jump right out of their self imposed limits.