JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 24th August 2012, 06:44 PM   #161
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,827
Whatever creams your twinkie.

Meanwhile, here in Austin there are no plans to re-name the Lance Armstrong Bikeway, a six-mile strip along a major highway. However, local news reports like this one are beginning to call into question the matter of Lance's $3.5 million in earnings from his TdF victories: namely, will he have to give it back? Through it all the efforts of his Cancer foundation, Livestrong, which has raised half a billion dollars, continue.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 07:15 PM   #162
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
There's been a lot of borderline CT posts in this thread. I'd like to know the motive for USADA acting like this if it doesn't have credible evidence.
So would I but that doesn't mean I'm just going to take their word for it. The argument you are making is the same one that gets made every single time there's a specious prosecution - "there is no way that prosecutor would be going after those Duke players if they didn't have good evidence".

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
More concerning, from a skeptic perspective, is the automatic rejection of evidence, and witnesses, without knowing what it shows, or they say.
Actually automatic rejection or embrace without knowing what it shows, is concerning. However there is no automatic rejection of "evidence" here since we haven't even seen the evidence.

That said I do tend to agree with you and think it likely he would have contested the charges to the ends of the earth if false. But that's just a guess. There is a point at which a human being, even a champion, can reach a point where they just don't want to fight something any more.

One thing that I find a little questionable is that there would be 10 different witnesses as they claim. As smart as this guy is, and the fact that he was either clean or beat 500+ tests, I'd think the number of people that would have been in on it would be counted on one hand.

Anyhow, my guess is he did it, and it's disappointing to me.

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 24th August 2012 at 07:19 PM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 07:21 PM   #163
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
He said, she said. Not credible.
Esp. since they all had motivations to enhance the truth.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 07:30 PM   #164
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,848
I guess Bolt is doping then, because he was sure outrunning the competition, especially in that one race.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 07:42 PM   #165
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I guess Bolt is doping then, because he was sure outrunning the competition, especially in that one race.
They've tried again and again to hurl suspicions at Bolt, yet there is not a SHRED of evidence that he's doping. It's sort of sad that anyone that does well is now accused of steroids or doping. It's gotta be incredibly painful to endure that if you're legit.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 07:52 PM   #166
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,123
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
They've tried again and again to hurl suspicions at Bolt, yet there is not a SHRED of evidence that he's doping. It's sort of sad that anyone that does well is now accused of steroids or doping. It's gotta be incredibly painful to endure that if you're legit.
That fault is at the feet of the dopers.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 07:56 PM   #167
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,198
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Esp. since they all had motivations to enhance the truth.
Not all of them.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 08:13 PM   #168
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,903
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
So would I but that doesn't mean I'm just going to take their word for it. The argument you are making is the same one that gets made every single time there's a specious prosecution - "there is no way that prosecutor would be going after those Duke players if they didn't have good evidence".



Actually automatic rejection or embrace without knowing what it shows, is concerning. However there is no automatic rejection of "evidence" here since we haven't even seen the evidence.

That said I do tend to agree with you and think it likely he would have contested the charges to the ends of the earth if false. But that's just a guess. There is a point at which a human being, even a champion, can reach a point where they just don't want to fight something any more.

One thing that I find a little questionable is that there would be 10 different witnesses as they claim. As smart as this guy is, and the fact that he was either clean or beat 500+ tests, I'd think the number of people that would have been in on it would be counted on one hand.

Anyhow, my guess is he did it, and it's disappointing to me.
Oh, beating drug tests has become a minor league industry in professional sports. I give you Barry Bonds as an example.
Thing is,the tests are becoming better,and it is no longer so easy to beat them.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 08:46 PM   #169
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 28,304
Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush View Post
No Australians in any of the TdF's Gunderson won?

Really? I mean, if you're in the race, and you're from Australia, and Lance Gunderson wins, he beat you, I don't care what color your jersey is. You may be racing for the points, but what everyone wants is the overall win. That's why it's called the overall.

I admit, I don't know or care to know anything about bicycling
. Far as I'm concerned, it became irrelevant the minute the motorcycle was invented.
That explains what you just said then. In any given tour, only about 10% of the field are going for the overall time. The other 90% are either leaders interested in other jerseys (Climbers and Sprinters, King Of The Mountains contenders historically are happy to lose a lot of time on a few stages so when they go on the attack to get their points they won't be chased, sprinters are usually incompetent climbers and so lose a lot of time there), riders going for opportunistic stage wins or team helpers. Many of the riders couldn't care less about their own overall time.
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 08:58 PM   #170
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
That fault is at the feet of the dopers.
Not IMO. Accusations without evidence are at the feet of the people making the accusations without evidence. In fact I'd say that argument is almost like the justification of doping and roids - "everyone's doing it". Or in this case writers go with "hey it's OK for me to write an article theorizing that Bolt is on roids and it's not my fault if I don't have evidence, it's the fault of all those guys using roids creating this atmosphere of suspicion".
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 09:05 PM   #171
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,123
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
Not IMO. Accusations without evidence are at the feet of the people making the accusations without evidence. In fact I'd say that argument is almost like the justification of doping and roids - "everyone's doing it". Or in this case writers go with "hey it's OK for me to write an article theorizing that Bolt is on roids and it's not my fault if I don't have evidence, it's the fault of all those guys using roids creating this atmosphere of suspicion".
Where does the idea of athletes cheating with PEDs come from? Fiction, or reality?

Sorry but as long as these guys dope, there will be the suspicion, unfounded or not. Fair or not.

Worse yet, the technology the cheaters use almost keeps them one step ahead. Almost.

Last edited by Resume; 24th August 2012 at 09:13 PM.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 09:48 PM   #172
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Where does the idea of athletes cheating with PEDs come from? Fiction, or reality?

Sorry but as long as these guys dope, there will be the suspicion, unfounded or not. Fair or not.

Worse yet, the technology the cheaters use almost keeps them one step ahead. Almost.
Suspicion is to be expected, but what I'm arguing is that I don't think that justifies expressing such suspicions in the media (if I were a journalist or sports writer), without strong evidence. Just how I feel about it. Sadly our media now feels it's OK to report almost anything and as long as they identify it as a "suspicion" or "rumor" they are protected from slander/libel. Heck, they even like to further destroy people by saying things like "many people believe Bolt's performances are impossible without steroids". No fact, no evidence, just suspicion and "many people believe"....which of course results in many people believing it .
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 09:52 PM   #173
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
The Onions take on it . http://www.theonion.com/articles/lan...o-still,29313/
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 10:34 PM   #174
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,198
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
Not IMO. Accusations without evidence are at the feet of the people making the accusations without evidence. In fact I'd say that argument is almost like the justification of doping and roids - "everyone's doing it". Or in this case writers go with "hey it's OK for me to write an article theorizing that Bolt is on roids and it's not my fault if I don't have evidence, it's the fault of all those guys using roids creating this atmosphere of suspicion".
There are also indicators. The 40 year old athlete suddenly belting out 3 home runs a game. The runner who does nothing their whole career and shatters the world record at the Olympics. Clean runners who run faster now than the dirtiest runners ran before they were caught.

It raises suspicions, as it should.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 10:59 PM   #175
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 21,039
Maybe he'll change his name to Lance Armstrong Dagny Taggart.

It kind of seems fitting.
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2012, 11:56 PM   #176
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
There are also indicators. The 40 year old athlete suddenly belting out 3 home runs a game. The runner who does nothing their whole career and shatters the world record at the Olympics. Clean runners who run faster now than the dirtiest runners ran before they were caught.

It raises suspicions, as it should.
Well again , I've got no issues with people having suspicions, my stance is that it's wrong to suggest that people are using steroids with no evidence. Do you disagree? If so I'm not sure why you're quoting me and responding as you are?

Let's look at your examples above and compare them to a few in history:
1. Bob Beaman shattered the long jump record by 2 feet in one of the most incredible feats in Olympic history (in 1968). Do you think he was doping or on steroids ? If he achieved that today do you think it would be OK to repeatedly suggest he's on steroids with no evidence and him passing all drug tests?

2. I suspect there have been quite a few cases ion history of athletes performing better later in their career without roids. So while your example is legit it's certainly been done without roids.

3. I'm not even sure your example of a runner doing nothing their entire career and then suddenly shattering the world record even exists? Care to give an example?


4. Your last example applies to Usain Bolt who has been tested extensively using all the latest techniques and has invited testers to test him anytime anywhere. Do you think it's OK to write articles suggesting he's on steroids?

I'm just not sure what we're debating here. It's perfectly natural to have suspicions, but absent evidence I don't think it appropriate to suggest people are on steroids. Are you disagreeing?
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 12:25 AM   #177
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,198
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
Well again , I've got no issues with people having suspicions, my stance is that it's wrong to suggest that people are using steroids with no evidence. Do you disagree? If so I'm not sure why you're quoting me and responding as you are?

Let's look at your examples above and compare them to a few in history:
1. Bob Beaman shattered the long jump record by 2 feet in one of the most incredible feats in Olympic history (in 1968). Do you think he was doping or on steroids ? If he achieved that today do you think it would be OK to repeatedly suggest he's on steroids with no evidence and him passing all drug tests?

2. I suspect there have been quite a few cases ion history of athletes performing better later in their career without roids. So while your example is legit it's certainly been done without roids.

3. I'm not even sure your example of a runner doing nothing their entire career and then suddenly shattering the world record even exists? Care to give an example?


4. Your last example applies to Usain Bolt who has been tested extensively using all the latest techniques and has invited testers to test him anytime anywhere. Do you think it's OK to write articles suggesting he's on steroids?

I'm just not sure what we're debating here. It's perfectly natural to have suspicions, but absent evidence I don't think it appropriate to suggest people are on steroids. Are you disagreeing?
You are cherry picking evidence. You ignore all the times the indicators turn out to be right.

And I wasn't talking about Usain Bolt. I was talking about Carl Lewis who beat Ben Johnson's record in the 100m supposedly clean, in the last race of his career when he was thirty years old. All those years he claimed to be clean and yet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003...s.duncanmackay

Quote:
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Now, when Sports Illustrated stated they knew Ben Johnson was doping they were asked why they didn't say anything and they said "because we would have to tell on everyone, including Carl Lewis."

They were pooh-poohed and the US team stated it wasn't true that their athletes were clean and yet, it comes out:

Quote:
The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests between 1988 and 2000 were covered up. It will add weight to calls by leading anti-doping officials and top athletes for an independent inquiry into the US's record on drug issues.
It would seem that the "rumours" you despise are usually started by someone who actually has some evidence that gets labelled as a mere rumour by people who don't want to listen. This mentality protected Armstrong for 15 years.

I think the USADA has put cheaters on notice.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 01:02 AM   #178
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,931
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
So then you have to reinstate all the titles from all the other athletes who were stripped of theirs. Why is it that Armstrong should get a special pass on wrongdoing?
Because, as has been raised a number of times, who do you give the title to? He won the tour, as did others since doping has been going on for years outwith his reign, during the doping era.

In the end he was not tested positive during the races and so passed the rules at the time. I see that as the best of a bad bunch.

Now we are seeing cycling without drugs and have entered a new era.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 01:16 AM   #179
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
You are cherry picking evidence. You ignore all the times the indicators turn out to be right.
You're the one cherry picking, I acknowledged yours points and simply pointed out that there are going to be situations in which your examples indict innocent people.

Quote:
It would seem that the "rumours" you despise are usually started by someone who actually has some evidence that gets labelled as a mere rumour by people who don't want to listen.
You ignored actually answering my questions so let's see if I can get some direct answers out of you:

1. Would you care to give an example of a runner who did nothing his entire career and than shattered records at the Olympics? Because I'm just trying to determine how informed you are about this subject or if you just made that up.

2. Is your position that it's OK for the media to write articles suggesting that people are on steroids because of rumors, with NO evidence? Because that's ALL I've maintained. Again, we're not talking about the Armstrong case, he was under investigation and this was clearly a news event. If you're fine with it don't dodge with silly suggestions that "protects cheaters", just say you're OK with accusing people of things with no evidence and be done with it.
Quote:
It would seem that the "rumours" you despise are usually started by someone who actually has some evidence that gets labelled as a mere rumour by people who don't want to listen.
So if I believe it's unethical to accuse someone of something without evidence, it's because I "don't want to listen"?! BTW, the claims in your last sentence are completely non-quantifiable.
Quote:
This mentality protected Armstrong for 15 years.
Actually the fact that he passed all his tests and that they couldn't make a case against him is what protected him. Not that the media didn't report the rumors, in fact I believe that they did in fact report about them, didn't they ?

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 25th August 2012 at 01:32 AM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 01:28 AM   #180
23_Tauri
Illuminator
 
23_Tauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush View Post
No Australians in any of the TdF's Gunderson won?

Really? I mean, if you're in the race, and you're from Australia, and Lance Gunderson wins, he beat you, I don't care what color your jersey is. You may be racing for the points, but what everyone wants is the overall win. That's why it's called the overall.

I admit, I don't know or care to know anything about bicycling.
You don't say? [SNIP]
Edited by kmortis:  Removed uncivil comment
__________________
Little Miss Witchcraft, she's not made of straw.

Last edited by kmortis; 27th August 2012 at 09:22 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 0
23_Tauri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 02:34 AM   #181
icerat
Illuminator
 
icerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sweden
Posts: 4,362
Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth
__________________
Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available

There's a few people on my ignore list. If someone's asking me questions and I'm not answering, that's probably why.
icerat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 04:38 AM   #182
GlennB
Cereal pedant
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sapounakeika
Posts: 12,694
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth
Thank you, and it's scary stuff. A small clip:

"MA: There was only two conceivable ways that synthetic EPO could've gotten into those samples. One, is that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the '99 Tour, and we've since found out that there were teammates from US Postal in that '99 Tour that have since admitted using EPO while riding for US Postal in that Tour. The other way it could've got in the urine was if, as Lance Armstrong seems to believe, the laboratory spiked those samples. <snip>
However, Lance Armstrong made that claim. <snip> We know the laboratory could not have known which samples belonged to Lance Armstrong. And we also know from the results, how many of Lance Armstrong's samples had EPO in them <snip>. Now the odds of the laboratory randomly selecting Lance Armstrong's samples out of those 87 samples, <snip> the odds of that occurring are at least 1 in 300."


My bolding, and snipping for brevity.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 05:42 AM   #183
malicus
Graduate Poster
 
malicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth
Thanks for the link, a captivating read.
malicus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:01 AM   #184
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 10,389
Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:16 AM   #185
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."
Why all this worry about drugs, there's no pill you can take that will suddenly transform everyman into superman. It looks like we're giving drugs some magical ability.

Let them do what they want and let the mountains sort them out.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:24 AM   #186
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 27,986
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Why all this worry about drugs, there's no pill you can take that will suddenly transform everyman into superman. It looks like we're giving drugs some magical ability.

Let them do what they want and let the mountains sort them out.
Like Mont Ventoux sorted out Tommy Simpson?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:29 AM   #187
Monketey Ghost
Body of Work
 
Monketey Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: I'm on your screen!
Posts: 18,655
Either they all enhance or none of them. Otherwise it ain't equal competition, which is why there's public opposition to using.
__________________
remembering pillory

SSKCAS, member in long standing

If you accidentally ingest Monketey Ghost, induce vomiting and call your physician immediately.
Monketey Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:38 AM   #188
Marcus
Graduate Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,962
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth
Thanks. This is the one that convinced me, up until that time a lot of us were inclined to believe Lances story that the samples must have been spiked, it was a French lab after all.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 07:35 AM   #189
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 11,189
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."
It was the '50s and Jacques Anquetil
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 08:42 AM   #190
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 28,304
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."
Incidentally if you type that quote into Google this thread is the second result.

Closest quote I can find is from Jaques Anquetil.

Personally I'd be very surprised if the last few grand tour winners, Scarponi, Evans, Cobo, Hesjedal and Wiggins were shown to have been on drugs at the time. The performance level compared to previous years and all the current anti-doping measures are enough to satisfy me that these were pretty clean races, apart from of course Alberto Contadors presence, but he'd have to have been really stupid to have been on drugs for those races, since he already had a case pending at the time of the 2011 Giro and Tour.
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 09:34 AM   #191
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 8,147
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Thanks. This is the one that convinced me, up until that time a lot of us were inclined to believe Lances story that the samples must have been spiked, it was a French lab after all.
Assuming that the Ashenden's information is correct there is not only definitive proof that Armstrong used EPO for the 1999 TDF, the use by his competitors of EPO was much less common than most of us had surmised. Armstrong also showed a willingness to commit fraud to gain a payout by contending he didn't use PED's although it sounds like the case was eventually settled based on a theory that payment could not be withheld whether Armstrong did or did not use PED's.

My view up to this time was that some kind of drug cheating was rampant and Armstrong was just particularly skillful at masking it and as such he won the by the rules and the testing that was available at the time which is all that was significant. It sounds like the use of PED's was very common in 1998 but had been very significantly reduced by 1999. It also sounds like a rider in an environment where most people weren't using EPO was going to have a significant advantage.

Was Armstrong cheating from a moral standpoint? I'm still a little unclear on that. If all your competitors are willing to use PED's if they don't get caught and you just happen to be the one that figure's out how to do it, it seems like you're playing by the same rules as your competitors and as such maybe what Armstrong did was not exactly cheating in the moral sense. But it also seems like that wasn't exactly the case in 1999. It sounds like most of the competitors made the decision to follow the rules perhaps based on the theory that racing authorities were going to even the playing field by successfully enforcing the rules and Armstrong just decided to exploit the naivety of his opponents and used PED's when he knew that most had decided not to.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 10:56 AM   #192
Marcus
Graduate Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,962
As much as I hate to see Lance go down, I was pulling for him every moment of every TDF, this could be the event that convinces everyone to race clean. Perhaps it was clean this year, I don't see any reason to believe that Wiggins was taking anything, but you don't have to look any farther than last year to see a lot of drug use. Most of Lances competitors have been implicated one way or another, not just by blood tests, so I still don't believe he gained any great advantage.

There have just been so many prominent riders busted it makes the sport look farcical. Perhaps now the feeling in the peloton will be that not only is drug use too risky, but that it is also not required to keep up.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 11:14 AM   #193
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,628
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Where does the idea of athletes cheating with PEDs come from? Fiction, or reality?

Sorry but as long as these guys dope, there will be the suspicion, unfounded or not. Fair or not.

Worse yet, the technology the cheaters use almost keeps them one step ahead. Almost.
I had always supposed that Armstrong, while doping as much as many, was using his huge influence, money and position to find ways he could stay one step ahead of the legalities, using substances that had not yet become illegal, etc. Now I'm not so sure, and it sounds more as if he was an odds-playing jerk like so many others, beating the rap mostly by care and luck. Anyway, I'm surprised he gave up, being the sort of person he is, and I suspect it's because he knows the jig is up. Too bad. I had hoped he found a way to stay at least technically clean even if he cheated in the moral sense.

Either that or he still has some ace up his sleeve whereby he'll end up discrediting the whole doping agency, but it's looking more as if he's guilty than clever.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 11:45 AM   #194
Morrigan
Crone of War
 
Morrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,228
This may be a really dumb suggestion... but why not allow doping? Seems like they all do it anyway, and it's impossible to win without it, so might as well let them compete with it. You'd save the hassle of testing and find who the best athlete is among a bunch of dopers. *shrugs*

Some are saying that we are now entering an era of "clean cyclists"... uh, are you really that naive? Maybe the tests are improved now, but they'll just make a new drug that will pass the tests, until these get caught later on... and again and again.
Morrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 11:58 AM   #195
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,667
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth
Ditto to the other thanks - this was a fascinating interview, and devastating for Armstrong.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 12:29 PM   #196
Magyar
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 1,839
I am not sure what I think of this as a whole.
I've been saying for years that this whole testing thing is a joke. What should be donw is this. Anyone and everyone should be able to take anything they want. BUT they have to declare that they took something! IF they win they win but it's noted that they took something. If you claim you did not but you did, 1st possitive you're banned for life period.

This is the only way that this will stop(or not). The amount of pressure put on people by the corp sponsors to win is ALWAYS (as things are) goignt outweigh the threat of getting caught especially with the joke of a a punishements handed out.


As far as the article
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden
Quote:
AS: You were able to analyze the results, correct?

MA: I interpreted the results.
This is just outright pathatic! So in other words MA interpreted the rsults like 911 consiracy theorist interpret melted steal or like IDoits interpret the foscil records!

AFAIK Armsstrong has been the most tested athlete ever. Taking the same stuff, according to this article, that dozen of other riders have taken but were caught while armstrong hasn't. Call me synical, but something stinks.
__________________
"There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce

Were not going to be disrespected, Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) told Drucker Tuesday night. We have to get something out of this. And I dont know what that even is.
GOP at it's best.
Magyar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 12:33 PM   #197
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,667
Originally Posted by Magyar View Post
I am not sure what I think of this as a whole.
I've been saying for years that this whole testing thing is a joke. What should be donw is this. Anyone and everyone should be able to take anything they want. BUT they have to declare that they took something! IF they win they win but it's noted that they took something. If you claim you did not but you did, 1st possitive you're banned for life period.

This is the only way that this will stop(or not). The amount of pressure put on people by the corp sponsors to win is ALWAYS (as things are) goignt outweigh the threat of getting caught especially with the joke of a a punishements handed out.


As far as the article
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden


This is just outright pathatic! So in other words MA interpreted the rsults like 911 consiracy theorist interpret melted steal or like IDoits interpret the foscil records!

AFAIK Armsstrong has been the most tested athlete ever. Taking the same stuff, according to this article, that dozen of other riders have taken but were caught while armstrong hasn't. Call me synical, but something stinks.
Wow. Way to cherry pick one sentence from an incredibly long article.

Who says Armstrong is the most tested athlete ever? Oh yes, Armstrong does. Well, I guess it must be true then!

Don't worry, I won't call you "synical".
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 12:45 PM   #198
Marcus
Graduate Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,962
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
This may be a really dumb suggestion... but why not allow doping? Seems like they all do it anyway, and it's impossible to win without it, so might as well let them compete with it. You'd save the hassle of testing and find who the best athlete is among a bunch of dopers. *shrugs*

Some are saying that we are now entering an era of "clean cyclists"... uh, are you really that naive? Maybe the tests are improved now, but they'll just make a new drug that will pass the tests, until these get caught later on... and again and again.
Doping used to be allowed. There were even suggestions in official TDF publications. One year a rider died after his heart virtually exploded when cranked up on speed during a stage, IIRC that was what started the push to eliminate drugs from the sport.

It's not that it will ever be impossible to dope, it's more a matter of what will become sop among the riders. In years past, if you had any GC aspirations at all you didn't have much choice. That's the part that can change.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 12:53 PM   #199
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,198
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Why all this worry about drugs, there's no pill you can take that will suddenly transform everyman into superman. It looks like we're giving drugs some magical ability.

Let them do what they want and let the mountains sort them out.
Drugs aren't magic but they do give you a 10-15% boost in performance.

The issue is that clean athletes get screwed. They get beat by cheaters. An athlete using PED no more wins a race than the athlete who trips all the competitors in the 1500 meters and raises his hand as he crosses the finish line.

Two choices:

1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport.

2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly.

It looks like the USADA is taking the second option.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 01:44 PM   #200
GlennB
Cereal pedant
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sapounakeika
Posts: 12,694
Originally Posted by qayak View Post

Two choices:

1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport.

2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly.

It looks like the USADA is taking the second option.
Yes, the flaw in the "let them do what they want" argument is that then drugs become almost mandatory. Then all your winning female shot-putters develop hairy chests and deep voices, meaning that big women who fancy a crack at that sport might as well not bother unless they want the hairy chest.*

In addition, an exceptional clean winner's performance is downgraded in the public mind as they are assumed to be doing drugs.

*this 'hairy chest' business might not be entirely accurate, but substitute "untoward physical and health effects" and you get the gist
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.