Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cycling Doping Fallacies

thenewleafjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#51

Post by keypusher »

loeg wrote: post #33

What an extremely wordy and repetitive article mostly to say the author doesn't believe anyone can prove that Lance would have won in a clean field. Obviously, it never happened, so no one can know what would have happened. No one can prove a counterfactual. But I don't think the rest of the words adds to the discourse any more than the single sentence: > I do not think it follows from Mr. Armstrong having been stron…

I kept reading expecting to eventually get to some data, but there never was any. Just the same opinion restated over and over.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#52

Post by mtts »

diath wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion but I really think that all competitions should be untested like WSM. As it currently stands, the competition in most sports is about who has the resources to best hide their PED use.

It used to be this way. Cycling was doped, everyone knew that and everyone was open about it. There’s an amusing story from those days where two top contenders in a multi stage race agree to skip the drugs for one day. They arrive at the finish line much later and much more exhausted than usual and publicly announce they will never do something like that ever again.

The ban on doping dates from 1967, I believe, when British cyclist Tommy Simpson dropped dead from his bike during the Tour de France from having taken too many drugs (in combination with alcohol, too - truly these were different times).

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#53

Post by fransje26 »

throwup238 wrote: post #11
diath wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion but I really think that all competitions should be untested like WSM. As it currently stands, the competition in most sports is about who has the resources to best hide their PED use.

Not only tested but samples archived to test later as drugs and assays become known to the testers. The amount of money our governments waste on stadiums and financial incentives for sportsball teams is already ridiculous, it should at least not be completely fraudulent.

> The amount of money our governments waste on stadiums and financial incentives for sportsball teams is already ridiculous, it should at least not be completely fraudulent.

What makes you think that "Bread and Games" is no longer relevant today? It was an effective way to keep the masses under control 2000 years ago, and it's possibly still very cost-effective today.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#54

Post by discreteevent »

Swizec wrote: post #9
ajcp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> baseline requirement for competing at the top levels of cycling. I agree, and for cheating in a sport Mr. Armstrong should be stripped of those awards given for such feats and no other judgement outside of that need be applied. However, Mr. Armstrong did not simply cheat; he actively and openly sought to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said otherwise. THAT was not a baseline requirement for competing…

Fair. I was not aware of all those other things. I guess he gets to keep the celebrity because he was the most successful American cyclist. America number one and all that :) (I’m not a american so I find that attitude silly but very noticeable)

I don't think it has much to do with being American. Cycling worships the greats no matter where they are from (take Pantani for example). It's an extremely tough sport with people who historically came from tough backgrounds. When a cyclist gets badly injured and you see them cycling on - it's because they have no other choice. They will lose their livelihood if they don't. None of this excuses drugs but it might explain why people identify with and often admire them no matter what country they come from.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#55

Post by mcv »

Swizec wrote: post #9
ajcp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> baseline requirement for competing at the top levels of cycling. I agree, and for cheating in a sport Mr. Armstrong should be stripped of those awards given for such feats and no other judgement outside of that need be applied. However, Mr. Armstrong did not simply cheat; he actively and openly sought to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said otherwise. THAT was not a baseline requirement for competing…

Fair. I was not aware of all those other things. I guess he gets to keep the celebrity because he was the most successful American cyclist. America number one and all that :) (I’m not a american so I find that attitude silly but very noticeable)

There have been other great American cyclists that haven't been caught with doping. Like Greg LeMond: fantastic tour winner, a major critic of doping in cycling, and one of the first to express doubts about the legitimacy of Armstrong's victory.

That is the great American cyclist people should be admiring.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#56

Post by 5555624 »

303uru wrote: post #49
stevage wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and all the while he openly and literally tried to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said as much Not just "tried", he completely destroyed a couple of journalists' careers. This is not something that should ever be forgiven.

Journalists and fellow cyclists. He destroyed Tyler Hamilton completely.

I think Hamilton's two failed drug tests destroyed his career far more than Armstrong.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#57

Post by stefs »

Scoundreller wrote: post #17
diath wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion but I really think that all competitions should be untested like WSM. As it currently stands, the competition in most sports is about who has the resources to best hide their PED use.

WSM = World’s Strongest Man? (Google first suggested Weston Super Mare, a UK semi-pro football club but I don’t think that’s right).

worlds strongest man is correct

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#58

Post by saiya-jin »

dogmatism wrote: post #26

1) Armstrong was (is) an asshole who destroyed careers and lives, which is part of why they threw the book at him as opposed to others 2) That said, 7 in a row is still incredible. While he had a few incidents, he was always able to recover and never had an injury or illness that knocked him out. If Roglic could say the same, he'd probably have won at least 2 Tours if not three 3) Of course they're still all doping.…

I do care, I'd never put my time (my worth from marketing perspective) into watching these money-infested events, it doesn't matter if its cycling, football, hockey etc. Constant money chasing deformed these sport events into something I can't respect and won't expose my kids to due to all the toxicity, with the usual hard talk prior it about the reasons.

Also, if somebody is giving their 99.9% to the effort it doesn't matter what the objective results are, the effort should be respected regardless. This kind of competitiveness goes directly against all good that sports can and should bring into healthy society.

Luckily there are plenty of sports where money is scarce and folks do it mostly for the love of sport itself.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#59

Post by saiya-jin »

wavemode wrote: post #10
diath wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion but I really think that all competitions should be untested like WSM. As it currently stands, the competition in most sports is about who has the resources to best hide their PED use.

It's about safety, really - most performance-enhancing drugs are detrimental to the body of the enhanced. If someone eats lots of potatoes and that gives them the energy to perform well at soccer, their performance was certainly "enhanced" by a "substance", but nobody would care.

Yes, but society generally doesn't like liars and certainly doesn't seem appropriate for them to live in luxury. And what is doping if not lying about your actual skills, efforts put into training and your mostly genetical limits

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#60

Post by ajcp »

buzzdenver wrote: post #37
nradov wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those interested in the Armstrong saga it's worth listening to his interview in the Peter Attia Drive podcast. For personal reasons that I won't go into here I still feel betrayed by his cheating and vindictive lying, but hearing about what has been doing since partially redeemed him in my eyes. https://peterattiamd.com/lancearmstrong/

Can you describe in a sentence or two what he has been doing? That 2-hour podcast is quite the commitment.

Having just listened to it seemingly being proud[1] and coming across as completely unrepentant. The podcast only reenforced my view that Armstrong should not be given any form of celebrity or space on any platform. He needs to just go away.

1. "More than anything I'm just really proud...proud I didn't quit...with no support or anything."

Post reply on HN