Off Topic Messages

Re: Congratulations Lance Armstrong

Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:48 pm

Well, Steffen Kjaergaard, a Norwegian is now as we speak sitting in front of the press in Norway telling about years of doping, epo and such during the ´90s. I am so glad these cheaters get caught. This man has never been on the level of Armstrong regarding results, you´ve probably never heard about the guy, but he got his team job (riding for US Postal) through obvious drug use, so he is a fraud too! He came foreward with his story on his own...he probably knew the bubble would burst with the case against Armstrong.

As a young woman once said regarding Armstrong; "Why didn´t he just stay on the moon?"

Sincerely MB280E

Re: Congratulations Lance Armstrong

Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:11 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
zolderopruiming1 wrote:Almost all top-sporters use forbidden stimula.

That doesn't make it right.


And look at how Bud Selig does nothing about all of the steriod etc. tainted records in baseball. :roll:

Re: Congratulations Lance Armstrong

Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:44 pm

TJ wrote:True LTB, but it's different when the approach taken to achieve the advantage is outlawed. Some athletes have natural physical advantages, but those advantages should be enhanced by hard work, not injections. Of course we'll never know how the results in those years would have differed if all riders had been clean. Armstrong might still have been the main man. That's beside the point though really. The real disappointment is the level of deceit involved, and how that contrasts with the heroic reputation that Armstrong had enjoyed. People rightly feel cheated.


There's not much there I disagree with TJ. We all thought we were getting a level of performance that we weren't really getting, that the bikers hadn't earned. My beef is dumping so much of it on Armstrong. When they're all cheats, it seems unfair to ridicule him to high heaven, particularly when many of his teammates, competitors on the Tour went kind of the weasel way.

I definitely think Armstrong should be ashamed of what he did, not least for the reason RJM stated, but I don't think though there's any doubt that he and his fellow competitors were truly superior athletes, just not as strong as we believed them all to be.

Re: Congratulations Lance Armstrong

Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:41 pm

Going the "weasel way" also means they admitted their guilt, which Armstrong hasn't. That's another reason that he's coming in for so much heat. Also, he is rightly or wrongly seen as the ringleader.

I don't think it should impact on the money he raised for his foundation though. It's fair to say that many who raised funds for his foundation did so in part because it was led by him, but ultimately it's the cause that counts.

Re: Congratulations Lance Armstrong

Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:46 am

Oh definitely on the Foundation.

My use of the word weasel way is just because it seems as if they got a pass because they turned on Armstrong.

Everything being said, and it's an important thing to wonder about and it's why I can't completely down on juicing athletes, everyone dismisses the well if everyone's doing it excuse. However, if you're a top flight athlete and you know your prime competitors are juicing what should you do lose? Because it many ways it almost guarantees it.

Because he's not a nice man personally, Barry Bonds in baseball is one of the worst whipping boys for steroids usage in that sport. In the early to mid-1990s he played it straight as the rest of the sport was discovering the advantages of roids. Clearly, clearly, the most gifted player in the sport. However, by the late 1990s his achievements were being displaced by the likes of journeyman like Brady Anderson, who topped 50 homeruns at a time when the best Bonds had ever done was 46.

So you have a guy here who is the best in the sport and his achievements look more modest everyday because his competitors are juicing. It hurts his earning capacity, it hurts his reputation and hurts his team's ability to win. He's the best, but the world can't see it. It's a very morally ambiguous decision. I have trouble with everybody getting all high and mighty on it. Yes you should care about the kids, about not defrauding the fans with inflated statistics/performance, your own personal health. But in a field defined entirely by performance, you have to make a decision about how to best protect your ability to compete. It's not easy.