| |
Main
Date: 01 Feb 2007 13:03:15
From: Scott
Subject: hyper hypocrisy
|
Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
never doped.
Maybe he was just disappointed that Museeuw didn't keep his mouth shut?
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2007 16:09:23
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Feb 3, 3:06 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net >
wrote:
> I can't think of any sane individual who believes that US pro
> footballers don't dope enormously. They also die very early on compared
> to the general public - not directly from the doping. However, tomorrow
> millions won't care as these guys ram into each other at the Superbowl.
dumbass,
how can you imply the NFL isn't serious about fighting doping ?
starting next year dopers won't be allowed to play in the probowl !
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 19:00:59
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Feb 2, 8:39 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170452379.214102.29610@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 1:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1170363795.019438.288920@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> >> > there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> >> > expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> >> > where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> >> > never doped.
>
> >> Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
> >> race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.
>
> > Tom,
>
> > There's a big difference between stating that everyone doped and my
> > comment on the hypocrisy of a known cheater (he WAS caught doping,
> > unlike many of the accused today) expressing his disgust with those
> > who dope today.
>
> Merckx has commented on his "positives" many times. It is his claim that he
> was warned not to enter so many races or something might happen and then he
> showed positive. It might be mentioned that he has always proclaimed his
> innocence while you are portraying it as an open and shut case despite the
> fact that Lance and Floyd were extremely peculiar cases.
dumbass,
I don't see where scott made any reference to lance or floyd. i think
the "accused" he's talking about above are puerto riders like basso.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2007 23:12:47
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170471659.252490.121160@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 8:39 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Merckx has commented on his "positives" many times. It is his claim that
>> he
>> was warned not to enter so many races or something might happen and then
>> he
>> showed positive. It might be mentioned that he has always proclaimed his
>> innocence while you are portraying it as an open and shut case despite
>> the
>> fact that Lance and Floyd were extremely peculiar cases.
>
> I don't see where scott made any reference to lance or floyd. i think
> the "accused" he's talking about above are puerto riders like basso.
In the initial posting he made reference to Merckx and compared him to
Museeuw. I don't believe that to be comparable at all. Merckx has explained
his "positives" many times and as a backup, we have SEEN the same sort of
curious "positives" for Floyd and Lance.
Listen to Floyd talk, he may not be the brightest bulb in the string, but he
is a long way from being a complete idiot. And only a COMPLETE idiot would
take testosterone and then go for a big time win. Well, what IF someone
slipped him something in his food or whatever? Well, it would have taken a
huge dose to go through his stomach and into his bloodstream in that manner.
Do you believe that he was snorting something?
And then the final kicker - BECAUSE his values showed contamination and
BECAUSE his testosterone levels were normal or perhaps even a bit low, and
BECAUSE WADA procedures should have canceled the test immediately upon the
second test showing such a HUGE difference from the first test, it
demonstrates that the doping analysis are completely out of anyone's
control. Who watches the watchers?
There's a lot of hypocrisy in the sport I'm sure, but Scott was WAY off base
publishing a comment that implied that everyone uses dope, that it's an open
and shut case and that anyone that has ever tested positive for anything
automatically is barred from commenting on what is going on today.
Particularly Merckx's comments about Museeuw. Johann looked like Superman
during one day classics. It was pretty obvious to most people that he was
running on plain water because of the cross section of the races he won -
they were all the hardest one day events and usually he didn't look so
superior anywhere else. And he looked poorly in stage races even some of
them that only had modest hills in them. That he finally succumbed to the
"Everyone's doing it" syndrome near the end when he wanted his fans to see
him winning right up to the end was hardly surprising. But it was
disappointing to me and obviously to Eddy Merckx as well. Saying so hardly
qualifies as "hyper hypocrisy".
If you don't know why we have to prevent those urges to use drugs as much as
possible then you don't understand the consequences both long term and short
from doping. Remember, MOST people who smoke don't suffer the worst
debilitating health problems from smoking and the same can be said for most
forms of doping today. But aside from possibly causing permanent health
damage it undermines the whole reason behind racing - to find the BEST - the
strongest, most enduring and psychologically superior rider. And doping
changes all that by making someone stronger, more enduring and taking away a
lot of pain so that they don't have to be mentally strongest.
However, at the same time we cannot blindly accuse anyone that wins as a
doper, nor can we do what is being done to the sport today by the vapid
asses in the UCI, WADA and the testing laboratories. These people ought to
have their asses kicked but good. In the USA perhaps riders such as Lance
and Floyd would have the ability to sue for just cause, but it is much more
difficult in Europe and that has allowed the L'Equipe morons a free ride
away from defamation suits and that is really a crying shame.
What I would like to see is people like Scott to SEE he's being manipulated
by a press who makes money off of controversy and headline lies.
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 13:39:39
From: Scott
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Feb 2, 1:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170363795.019438.288920@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> > there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> > expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> > where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> > never doped.
>
> Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
> race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.
Tom,
There's a big difference between stating that everyone doped and my
comment on the hypocrisy of a known cheater (he WAS caught doping,
unlike many of the accused today) expressing his disgust with those
who dope today.
Scott
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2007 01:39:05
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170452379.214102.29610@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 1:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170363795.019438.288920@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
>> > there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
>> > expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
>> > where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
>> > never doped.
>>
>> Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
>> race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.
>
> Tom,
>
> There's a big difference between stating that everyone doped and my
> comment on the hypocrisy of a known cheater (he WAS caught doping,
> unlike many of the accused today) expressing his disgust with those
> who dope today.
Merckx has commented on his "positives" many times. It is his claim that he
was warned not to enter so many races or something might happen and then he
showed positive. It might be mentioned that he has always proclaimed his
innocence while you are portraying it as an open and shut case despite the
fact that Lance and Floyd were extremely peculiar cases.
Floyd initial "positive" for t/e ratio was 4.5:1 the second test showed
11:1. The lab themselves say that they're accuracy is plus or minus 30% so
the second test plainly showed that there was contamination in the sample
and by WADA's own rules should have been throw out. So how is it that a half
a year later they're still arguing about this?
As for Lance - maybe it doesn't bother you that his "sample" showed positive
and conveniently there wasn't enough of the sample left to pass to another
lab as a backup test.
Bob Roll, who should know about these things has stated several times that
he is very suspicious of the French managed system.
Or perhaps you know more about it than the insiders?
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 20:00:26
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170363795.019438.288920@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> never doped.
Yep, you got it straight - not one single person that every won a bicycle
race anywhere in the world was ever clean. Ever.
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 10:43:39
From: Keith
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
>there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
>expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
>where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
>never doped.
>
>Maybe he was just disappointed that Museeuw didn't keep his mouth shut?
Exactly what I was thinking when I read his comments yesterday, where
is the goold old Omerta when you need it right ! At least Museeuw
wasn't dumb enough to get caught like Merckx in 69.
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 17:22:51
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Feb 1, 6:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
> relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
> endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
> actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
> that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
>
> You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
> Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
> guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
> everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
> assumptions-
>
> #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> winning
> #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> dope
> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
They6 were riding in a whole different world as you point out. They
are between a rock and a hard place when everyone is asking about
doping now. This sort of crosees over from the Iranian discussion.
Jason's point is that they are operating under a whole different set
of reality and it's unfair to judge them by our current standards.
There's a lot to be said for that, especially in this case. They did
what was allowed with a wink and nod in the past, and today that's not
acceptable. Someone needs to be the victim who stands up and says
this. They'll get killed but the sport would be better for it.
I don't like to compare eras, and don't think you can in cycling
because of the drastic changes in training, nutrition, and equipment.
We just need to appreciate it for what happened then, and the racing
that's happening now.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 22:25:56
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
In article
<1170379371.359072.82780@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 6:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
> > relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
> > endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
> > actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
> > that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
> >
> > You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
> > Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
> > guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
> > everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
> > assumptions-
> >
> > #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> > winning
> > #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> > dope
> > #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
> >
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> They6 were riding in a whole different world as you point out. They
> are between a rock and a hard place when everyone is asking about
> doping now. This sort of crosees over from the Iranian discussion.
> Jason's point is that they are operating under a whole different set
> of reality and it's unfair to judge them by our current standards.
> There's a lot to be said for that, especially in this case. They did
> what was allowed with a wink and nod in the past, and today that's not
> acceptable.
Depends what you mean by acceptable and who says so. I
think doping today is as acceptable as at any time in
history. I'll go further and say it is acceptable for a
cyclist to dope.
> Someone needs to be the victim who stands up and says
> this. They'll get killed but the sport would be better for it.
> I don't like to compare eras, and don't think you can in cycling
> because of the drastic changes in training, nutrition, and equipment.
> We just need to appreciate it for what happened then, and the racing
> that's happening now.
> Bill C
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 15:37:28
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Feb 1, 6:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> >there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> >expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> >where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> >never doped.
>
> It's not just you. I'm with you..
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
a tradition!"
St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
comes back around again.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 22:22:38
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
In article
<1170373048.672752.237140@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >
,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 6:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
> > On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
> > >there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
> > >expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
> > >where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
> > >never doped.
> >
> > It's not just you. I'm with you..
>
> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
> a tradition!"
> St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> comes back around again.
Better to mix an Old Fashioned than a metaphor.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Fashioned >
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 18:29:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:22:38 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:
>> St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
>> comes back around again.
>
>Better to mix an Old Fashioned than a metaphor.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Fashioned>
Make the house out of security glass, mix the Old Fashioned and sit
there and laugh at the idiots throwing rocks. You're the one sitting
comfortably. In the end, just a waste of rocks.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 09:58:02
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
Bill C wrote:
> St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> comes back around again.
Ask Lefevere.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 23:54:49
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
> a tradition!"
> St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> comes back around again.
> Bill C
But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
assumptions-
#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
winning
#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
dope
#3: The public demands a "clean" sport
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2007 13:06:38
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> winning
> #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> dope
> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>
I'm skeptical that the public demands anything. This seems to be some
sort of manufactured storm which causes controversy and rumors. Those
are the two things the media feed on which causes them to gen up a lot
of noise. Of course, the media aren't going to publish any story where
folks say, "So what?".
I can't think of any sane individual who believes that US pro
footballers don't dope enormously. They also die very early on compared
to the general public - not directly from the doping. However, tomorrow
millions won't care as these guys ram into each other at the Superbowl.
-paul
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2007 15:17:03
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
>> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>>
> I'm skeptical that the public demands anything. This seems to be some sort
> of manufactured storm which causes controversy and rumors.
As I said, it was an ASSUMPTION that the public demands a clean sport. I
don't believe that assumption to be correct. The public demands a spectacle,
and doping revelations, to some extent, add to that spectacle.
I have yet to see evidence that doping scandals have ruined the commercial
aspect of cycling.
Would I prefer that the sport was "clean" and the best athlete, without help
from doctors and drugs, always won? Sure. Why not. But it doesn't keep me
from enjoying the sport.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote in message
news:MPGdneyqkp-LdlnYnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>
>> #1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances
>> of winning
>> #2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they
>> don't dope
>> #3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>>
> I'm skeptical that the public demands anything. This seems to be some sort
> of manufactured storm which causes controversy and rumors. Those are the
> two things the media feed on which causes them to gen up a lot of noise.
> Of course, the media aren't going to publish any story where folks say,
> "So what?".
>
> I can't think of any sane individual who believes that US pro footballers
> don't dope enormously. They also die very early on compared to the general
> public - not directly from the doping. However, tomorrow millions won't
> care as these guys ram into each other at the Superbowl.
>
> -paul
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 01:07:30
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:54:49 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
>> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
>> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
>> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
>> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
>> a tradition!"
>> St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
>> comes back around again.
>> Bill C
>
>But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
>relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
>endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
>actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
>that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
>
>You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
>Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
>guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
>everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
>assumptions-
>
>#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
>winning
>#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
>dope
>#3: The public demands a "clean" sport
Excellent point. You're right about those assumptions and you are right to call
them assumptions.
Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 22:34:29
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
In article <g7l5s2l2ev9m15rih3miuck0rnso1rpvur@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:54:49 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
> >> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
> >> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
> >> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
> >> a tradition!"
> >> St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
> >> comes back around again.
> >> Bill C
> >
> >But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
> >relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
> >endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
> >actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
> >that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
> >
> >You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
> >Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
> >guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
> >everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
> >assumptions-
> >
> >#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
> >winning
> >#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
> >dope
> >#3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>
> Excellent point. You're right about those assumptions and you are right to
> call them assumptions.
I'd say that number 3 is biggest assumption. The public only seems to care about
that when someone is caught and it was fairly obvious that they were probably doing
it for a long time (see: Barry Bonds, although he hasn't really been "caught" yet).
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 18:27:41
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:34:29 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>
> I'd say that number 3 is biggest assumption. The public only seems to care about
>that when someone is caught and it was fairly obvious that they were probably doing
>it for a long time (see: Barry Bonds, although he hasn't really been "caught" yet).
I think you are confusing prurient interest with 'care'. When North
Dallas 40 came out, there was a general agreement that it reflected
what was going on in U.S.pro football - and no one cared past the
theater parking lot.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 11:23:46
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:34:29 -0800, Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com >
wrote:
>In article <g7l5s2l2ev9m15rih3miuck0rnso1rpvur@4ax.com>,
> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:54:49 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>> <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Agreed. Noone is really investigating the "sins" of the past, at the
>> >> moment, but if these former riders keep slamming today's riders
>> >> someone may just do the investigating and write a book, and I can see
>> >> the newspapers running with "Dirty for 50 years!! Doping in cycling is
>> >> a tradition!"
>> >> St people, living in glass houses, don't throw rocks. Everything
>> >> comes back around again.
>> >> Bill C
>> >
>> >But in their minds, they (the athletes of yesteryear) didn't cheat. They
>> >relied on various drugs to either aid in recovery or simply allow them to
>> >endure the unendurable. It was all about survive, not using drugs to
>> >actually win. And there certainly wasn't all the science behind the drugs
>> >that we have now; I doubt their training programs took doping into account.
>> >
>> >You and I can see right through that sort of thinking, but they cannot.
>> >Cheating, to them, implies doing something to get ahead. Something the other
>> >guy isn't doing. Merckx probably assumed (probably rightfully so) that
>> >everyone else was doing the same. What's different now are three
>> >assumptions-
>> >
>> >#1: That correct use of drugs can add measurably to an athlete's chances of
>> >winning
>> >#2: The belief that some athletes are at a disadvantage because they don't
>> >dope
>> >#3: The public demands a "clean" sport
>>
>> Excellent point. You're right about those assumptions and you are right to
>> call them assumptions.
>
> I'd say that number 3 is biggest assumption. The public only seems to care about
>that when someone is caught and it was fairly obvious that they were probably doing
>it for a long time (see: Barry Bonds, although he hasn't really been "caught" yet).
My opinion is that consistency and integrity are a more important form of clean
than is being drug free. Being able to read a race result in the Monday morning
paper and know that is the winner is way more important than the details of T/E
ratios.
Barry Bonds was clearly doping more than the other guys and you can tell just by
looking at him. That's his problem. Ozzie Smith went from being described in a
scouting report with "you can knock the bat out of his hands with a well thrown
ball" to being a premier lead off man. Not bad for a guy in his thirties. Nobody
cared because he was just putting on enough muscle to match the talents he was
known to have rather than chasing a record. Yes, that's a really fuzzy line and
I have no clue how a sanctioning organization would turn that into a rule.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 18:16:17
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: hyper hypocrisy
|
On 1 Feb 2007 13:03:15 -0800, "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>Is it just me, or does it strike others somewhat hypocritical that
>there are so many former pros (many now team directors) who are
>expressing their disappointment with the current riders. For example,
>where does Merckx get off being disappointed in Museeuw??? As if HE
>never doped.
>
It's not just you. I'm with you..
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
|
