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

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#61

Post by loeg »

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.

It sounds like he mostly just rides mountain bikes around his hometown somewhere in Colorado and occasionally does a chat with cancer patients who are interested in that.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#62

Post by loeg »

ajcp wrote: post #60
buzzdenver wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Can you give a rough timestamp for that quote to establish some context?

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#63

Post by [deleted] »

saiya-jin wrote: post #59
wavemode wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#64

Post by ukoki »

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…

The artcle is bullshit because the performance of a doped athelete is going to depend on two factors:

1. The athlete's baseline performance (ie would they be fast clean?)

2. How well the athlete's body responds to the effects of doping

You cannot say "they were fast doped so they must be fast clean" -- they might just have a unusually positive reaction to EPO.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#65

Post by timeon »

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.…

> Cadel Evans era was boring

Except for rise of Peter Sagan.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#66

Post by timeon »

operatingthetan wrote: post #48
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 also makes cycling a competition of who has the best genes and training plan. Which is kinda gross honestly. Open up the drugs and then there are whole other aspects to the competition than being born with good blood (literally).

> Open up the drugs and then there are whole other aspects to the competition than being born with good blood (literally).

Cycling is about endurance and power output. If you remove 'genes and training plan' you are left with dice roll. If anything I would remove team radios [0].

[0] Like when Anna Kiesenhofer won in Tokio.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#67

Post by operatingthetan »

timeon wrote: post #66
operatingthetan wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also makes cycling a competition of who has the best genes and training plan. Which is kinda gross honestly. Open up the drugs and then there are whole other aspects to the competition than being born with good blood (literally).

> Open up the drugs and then there are whole other aspects to the competition than being born with good blood (literally). Cycling is about endurance and power output. If you remove 'genes and training plan' you are left with dice roll. If anything I would remove team radios [0]. [0] Like when Anna Kiesenhofer won in Tokio.

Leaving out strategy and tactics seems odd. It's not roulette.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#68

Post by Astraco »

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.…

Really? Do prefer watching a bunch of doped kids crying because is raining or is cold? C'mon.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#69

Post by michael1999 »

Swizec wrote: post #5
ajcp wrote: post #4

> I do think that history has treated Mr. Armstrong unfairly for the essential act of his cheating. > To be sure, Mr. Armstrong brought much of his disparate treatment on himself. Perhaps history, but I think modernity has been far too kind to Mr. Armstrong. I'm floored that Lance Armstrong is still given a degree of celebrity and room as a public figure, and still more that he can make money off of that. That his ce…

> That his celebrity and accolades were obtained fraudulently Important to remember that when they took Armstrong’s trophies away, the next person who hadn’t yet been caught doping finished 10th. During that era of cycling, 87% of top 10 finishers tested positive for doping at least once. https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-... That doesn’t excuse his doping, of course. It just means that at t…

Armstrong's big crime wasn't doping. Everyone at the top was doing it. His crime was going after his team mate Hamilton and the journalists who exposed his cheating for libel. To go to court and call the truth a lie, and a lie the true is a crime. Armstrong is a narcissistic liar. I wish the Sunday Times had done him for millions.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#70

Post by [deleted] »

nradov wrote: post #14
ajcp wrote: post #4

> I do think that history has treated Mr. Armstrong unfairly for the essential act of his cheating. > To be sure, Mr. Armstrong brought much of his disparate treatment on himself. Perhaps history, but I think modernity has been far too kind to Mr. Armstrong. I'm floored that Lance Armstrong is still given a degree of celebrity and room as a public figure, and still more that he can make money off of that. That his ce…

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/

[deleted]
Post reply on HN