|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
And it pains me to admit it, but Brian's not only right, he's probably been right about doping prevalence more often than most people in this group. I'm sure many here didn't have any illusions either. Its just that if everybodies doing it then the race is still mostly about who has the most ability. And in Armstrong's case it was more the ability to be single minded and focus everything on winning the TDF than just talent or physical ability. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
Dans le message de ,
Dan Gregory a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : Sandy wrote: Dans le message de , Dan Gregory a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : Spotted Dick asks will they give me back my nine months of suspension.. http://commentateursvelo.blogs.eurosport.fr/ Won again. You're runner up. Mais j'ai fait mes cent bornes ce matin (avant la pluie) I rode 60 miles before it starts to rain .. :-)) Et nous, seulement 85. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 26, 11:45 am, RonSonic wrote:
"Risible." From the Latin "ris" for laugh - the root word of ridicule and derision. Thank you. I knew, as soon as I popped "send", I would be called into account for leaving the hyphen out, between ision and able. However, my intent in posting was not based on "laughter" but on "laffer". Hidden protocols ("get me a positive reader"), personal vendettas, bad rules, worse enforcement-- none of that is very funny. Like having an apparent deep and real hatred for someone you've never met; who, at worst, might only have been doing the same as everyone else, if being more successful at it... because he saluted too vigorously when he won some stupid bicycle race? (just guessing, there) --D-y |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 26, 11:43 am, "
wrote: On May 25, 11:36 pm, "Carl Sundquist" wrote: The situation that made Brian such a focal point of derision was not that he was necessarily wrong, but that his zealousness was focused on one individual to the degree of appearing of indifferent about doping throughout the remainder of peloton. I believe Brian stated (and then quoted himself at least once) he was actually in favor of letting riders use whatever they wanted. Which made his personal hatred of someone he's never met personally even more derisionable IMHO. Well, some people just can't stand others' feeling good about themselves, you know? Such is life! --D-y Actually that was one of the options Brian threw out there. I believe his point was that, at least that way, we'd have an honest system where everyone knew what was going on, what they were getting into, and it would allow close medical supervision for practices that are now underground. Proabably better for and afer for riders than the current mess where the majority feel the need to dope to compete, but are having to do it themselves or with quacks. Lot's of reasonable thoughts got lost in Brian's crusade against Lance and everyone who has every even met him. Bill C |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On 26 May 2007 14:09:11 -0700, "
wrote: On May 26, 11:45 am, RonSonic wrote: "Risible." From the Latin "ris" for laugh - the root word of ridicule and derision. Thank you. I knew, as soon as I popped "send", I would be called into account for leaving the hyphen out, between ision and able. Oh, it certainly was clear without a hyphen. However, my intent in posting was not based on "laughter" but on "laffer". Hidden protocols ("get me a positive reader"), personal vendettas, bad rules, worse enforcement-- none of that is very funny. Like having an apparent deep and real hatred for someone you've never met; who, at worst, might only have been doing the same as everyone else, if being more successful at it... because he saluted too vigorously when he won some stupid bicycle race? (just guessing, there) --D-y Risible is good for that. While it just means laughable it doesn't mean funny as much as that it should be laughed at as ridiculous and bordering on contemptable. A sort of one snort laugh. You know like the guys who say you can tell the dopers by either their super human consistency or by their super human recovery from having a bad day. Ron |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 25, 7:02 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote: I wonder how you would feel if you raced clean and lost Olympic Gold or the Tour to a doper. I'd want justice and the medal. And it pains me to admit it, but Brian's not only right, he's probably been right about doping prevalence more often than most people in this group. About the worst thing you can say about WADA-world is that it's a McCarthyite witch hunt. Overzealous, willing to transgress the principles it claims to get to its targets. And like McCarthy, the witches it's hunting are mostly real. I can't remember who keeps quoting "it's possible to frame a guilty man," but all I think of a lot of the time is a quote by Kissinger: can't they both lose? My saving grace with the whole "justice and the medal" approach is that, however proper it would be, moving everyone up a rung is probably better-than-even odds of just promoting a different doper in a large number of these cases. Dumbass, I said "Even a guilty man can be framed." I'll take credit for coining the phrase, unless of course I unconsciously cribbed it from somewhere. If it makes you happy, I originally said it about Alger Hiss, who was almost certainly guilty but not proven beyond a reasonable doubt until many years after the fact. However, you're 98% wrong about Joe McCarthy, as most of the people that McCarthy went after were not actually spies, but guilty only of having belonged to a disfavored political group - Army dentists, China experts, and the like, many of whom hadn't even been CPUSA members. This also goes for other people caught up in the Red Scare, targeted by HUAC and every Podunk witch-hunter, not just McCarthy. Back to cycling, Brian is right for the wrong reasons, in the way a stopped clock is right. It's always been a damn good bet that there is plenty of doping going on that we don't know about. Saying that some rider or team is doping can't ever be proven wrong, and sometimes the passage of time will prove you right. Kunich argues that Brian is just wrong, which I think is naive. More reasonable people argue that we may think there's doping but we don't know it, and you can't usually prove it by looking at race results and power outputs. (I'll make an exception for farcical race results like the Gewiss-Ballan 3-man breakaway, or disappearing acts like Berzin; many people accept those as evidence of doping.) Brian _knows_ certain people are on the hot sauce. The rest of us don't know for sure, even if we expect it. I think the open question is whether doping is still a team-organized activity as it was in the pre-Festina days, which the latest Telekom scandal is reminding us of. Even if not, it's not clear that any amount of UCI, WADA, public confessionals, and testing of riders will clean up the sport while all the DSes, soigneurs, and doctors are the same. The sponsors want no embarrassments, but they also want results. Sure, if I raced clean and lost a medal to someone I knew was doping, I would want it myself. Who wouldn't? But at the same time, 10 years later, I hope I wouldn't still be obsessing over it and waiting for a press conference confessional and my medal to come in the mail. Longtime bitterness eats away and owns you. My guess is that riders who race without doping have made a choice and mostly accept that they may win fewer races. In non-racing life, you could cheat on your taxes, swindle people at business, or climb your way to the top while stepping on people. Most of us don't, whether out of the fear of getting caught or some kind of ethics. We accept that we make less money or have less power than people who cheat or are assholes. It may not be very fair; cycling is a game with rules and is supposed to be fair, but still you make your choices and then you live with them. Or you can go on muttering about it years after the fact and turn into a street crazy. From there, it's a short step to posting to RBR. Ben |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
This is just another example of guilt by association. Since Indurain
was a tdf winner ergo he was doper.. I find this baseless character assassination to be very despicable to say the very least. On May 25, 9:36 am, " wrote: I too will always think of him as being a dignified patron of the peleton and-- rightyl or wrongly-- as a clean rider. Perhaps this is naive but it is how I want to remember him. Yes, this is naive! Big Mig was a doper; he was once described as 'EPO perfected'. I sure as hell hope no one still believes Pantani was clean! If they take Riis' title, they should take Pantani's as well. Should Ullrich admit he doped too that would leave...HOLY **** BOBBY JULICH AS THE VIRTUAL TdF champion! Considering the scandal that year and his meteoric crash, I'd Julich was clean. Oh my god my head's going to explode........... Seriously, this is one goddamn mess because if anyone deserves to get busted it was coke head Pantani. CH |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 26, 11:55 pm, " wrote:
This is just another example of guilt by association. Since Indurain was a tdf winner ergo he was doper.. I find this baseless character assassination to be very despicable to say the very least. On May 25, 9:36 am, " wrote: I too will always think of him as being a dignified patron of the peleton and-- rightyl or wrongly-- as a clean rider. Perhaps this is naive but it is how I want to remember him. Yes, this is naive! Big Mig was a doper; he was once described as 'EPO perfected'. I sure as hell hope no one still believes Pantani was clean! If they take Riis' title, they should take Pantani's as well. Should Ullrich admit he doped too that would leave...HOLY **** BOBBY JULICH AS THE VIRTUAL TdF champion! Considering the scandal that year and his meteoric crash, I'd Julich was clean. Oh my god my head's going to explode........... Seriously, this is one goddamn mess because if anyone deserves to get busted it was coke head Pantani. CH- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's pretty sad, but if you happen to be standing in a crackhouse with a fistful of cash when the cops raid it, even if you don't happen to be doing anything at that moment it's a pretty good bet that it was just your lucky moment, not that you are pure and innocent. Can't say he did, or didn't, but it's very reasonable to question his performances. When you've got a guy who weighs 40 lbs more dropping people on steep climbs all day long, or lightweights smoking TTs then you've really got to wonder. Bill C |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 27, 5:39 am, "
wrote: On May 25, 7:02 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: And it pains me to admit it, but Brian's not only right, he's probably been right about doping prevalence more often than most people in this group. Dumbass, Back to cycling, Brian is right for the wrong reasons, in the way a stopped clock is right. It's always been a damn good bet that there is plenty of doping going on that we don't know about. Saying that some rider or team is doping can't ever be proven wrong, and sometimes the passage of time will prove you right. Dumbass, I was a kid when the Four Color Problem was first solved. You may know that it was one of the first of the algorithmic proofs that was done by exhaustive computer checking and wasn't hand-checkable. I had a friend whose father was a topologist. Every few months my friend's father would get a letter from someone claiming to have proved the Four Color Problem. He'd glance through the proof and then pull out a form letter that said something like, "Dear Sir, I've received your proof of ______. Your first error is on page ____, line ____." Then he'd fill in the blanks and send it off. After Appel and Haken presented their proof, he got several letters from guys saying, "Hey, asshole, I was right." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why Are Mountain Bikers So Dishonest? | keydates | Social Issues | 0 | August 6th 04 03:38 PM |
Why Are Mountain Bikers So Dishonest? | p e t e f a g e r l i n | Mountain Biking | 2 | August 4th 04 03:17 PM |
Dishonest "Christian" Uses the Bible to Justify Habitat Destruction! | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 3 | June 22nd 04 07:01 PM |
Typical Dishonest Mountain Biker Tries to Justify Their Selfish,Destructive Sport | bkr | Social Issues | 2 | February 27th 04 04:10 AM |
Typical Dishonest Mountain Biker Tries to Justify Their Selfish, Destructive Sport | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 0 | February 24th 04 01:19 PM |