71–80 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Journalists and fellow cyclists. He destroyed Tyler Hamilton completely.
I think Hamilton's two failed drug tests destroyed his career far more than Armstrong.
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…
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.…
Even Cadel Evans had some connections to the likes of Michele Ferrari (Armstrong's own doping doc).
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.…
Regarding #5, the main reason why these substances are banned is that they have long-term health consequences beyond what normal performance in the sport might do to the athletes. It's not just a matter of "ok maybe we just have separate clean and doped leagues so we can have literal supermen running around the sportsball field". That being said, the NFL already chews through athletes anyway so maybe they've already…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding #5, the main reason why these substances are banned is that they have long-term health consequences beyond what normal performance in the sport might do to the athletes. It's not just a matter of "ok maybe we just have separate clean and doped leagues so we can have literal supermen running around the sportsball field". That being said, the NFL already chews through athletes anyway so maybe they've already…
Is Euro football different when we talk about doping? I catch the odd Euro soccer match once in a while, all those dudes have amazing stamina…
While I am a firm advocate for sports and physical activity at a personal level, my perspective shifts when it comes to high-level sports competitions. They often leave me feeling perplexed and disheartened, making me question whether I'm missing something that others see in them. More often than not, instead of inspiration or entertainment, I perceive underlying horror and abuse.
Obviously true, since a wide variety of responses will occur for any medical intervention, and doping is an extremely powerful one.
What exactly is the purpose of sports, beyond mere spectacle? Is it right to commend someone merely because they possess the ideal genetics? These genetics might make them naturally responsive to training or, controversially, to performance-enhancing drugs. But does it really matter? It's noticeable that sports are often pursued disproportionately by those from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds. Yet, paradox…
Are you sure about that? That goes completely against everything I've seen, and I come from an area known for high performance athletes. So much so that I used to eat lunch in highschool with someone who would go on to compete in the Olympics.
I associate sports, and especially their pursuit at a high level, with a high socio-economic background. Only the rich can afford the gym memberships, travel, gear(heh), time and energy to pursue sports. Every single Millennial I know who is serious about sports came from an upper-middle class or better background. 0 exceptions. I laugh hard about sports scholarships being really just a kickback for the rich. Every person who got one in my highschool class came from a family rich enough to put them through multiple camps a year, private trainers, fancy equipment. They were going to college either way.
Meanwhile, I like running and lifting weights and almost every older person in my blue collar network thinks it's stupid and I should work outside if I want to get exercise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/walsh-on-lemond-enduring...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding #5, the main reason why these substances are banned is that they have long-term health consequences beyond what normal performance in the sport might do to the athletes. It's not just a matter of "ok maybe we just have separate clean and doped leagues so we can have literal supermen running around the sportsball field". That being said, the NFL already chews through athletes anyway so maybe they've already…
Is Euro football different when we talk about doping? I catch the odd Euro soccer match once in a while, all those dudes have amazing stamina…