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

81–90 of 113 posts

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#81

Post by cannonpr »

riversflow wrote: post #78
cannonpr wrote: post #76

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…

> It's noticeable that sports are often pursued disproportionately by those from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds 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…

So I think there are many layers and levels to sport engagement, and also there are clear studies that wealthier societies pump more into sport. Studies do show that more well off societies get more super athletes etc. However there is also other data: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2020/02/24/sur... Yes their parents do need to be well off enough to support them, but these are people that still struggle and I certainly think there is a lot of data of poor people trying to get out of poverty via sport, and those will also be the most vulnerable to be pushed into destroying their bodies for it too. TLDR I don’t think you will find many tech CEO sons doping to be the next Armstrong.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#82

Post by renewiltord »

loeg wrote: post #62
ajcp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can get an exact timestamp. I will show you how on desktop and then you can post it here.

1. Go to the link https://peterattiamd.com/lancearmstrong/

2. At the bottom "Watch Podcast on Youtube"

3. Click "More" on the Description field

4. It will expand

5. Scroll down past the field to Chapters

6. Scroll past that to "Explore the Podcast"

7. You will see a section titled "Transcript"

8. Click "Show Transcript"

9. A dialog box will open on the right

10. Use Cmd-F on Mac or Ctrl-F on Windows/Linux to get your browser's Find in Page functionality

11. Type in "proud"

12. You'll find it quite quickly past the 2 hour mark

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#83

Post by KennyBlanken »

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…

Far too kind to his team coaches, doctors and nutritionists, too.

People like Allen Lim who made millions off books and supplements. Lim almost certainly knew what was going on.

If you buy Skratch products you're directly benefiting people who stood right next to Armstrong.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#84

Post by [deleted] »

riversflow wrote: post #78
cannonpr wrote: post #76

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…

> It's noticeable that sports are often pursued disproportionately by those from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds 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…

[deleted]

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#85

Post by riversflow »

cannonpr wrote: post #81
riversflow wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's noticeable that sports are often pursued disproportionately by those from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds 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…

So I think there are many layers and levels to sport engagement, and also there are clear studies that wealthier societies pump more into sport. Studies do show that more well off societies get more super athletes etc. However there is also other data: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2020/02/24/sur... Yes their parents do need to be well off enough to support them, but these are people that still strugg…

> I don’t think you will find many tech CEO sons doping to be the next Armstrong.

Counterpoint: Rich people still end up with Heroin addictions.

From what I've seen, doping is almost irresistible if you start down the path of high performance and have the cash to support it. People who are doping don't think they are destroying their body, they think they are unlocking their true potential. This is doubly true if you have enough money to hire a professional team to monitor/regulate your PEDs.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#86

Post by opportune »

aredox wrote: post #50
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.

A French sci-fi author wrote a novel where they do what you proposed... It is called "La guerre olympique" - the Olympic war. Needless to say it is a pure dystopia.

Damn. I guess there’s no point in trying it because that guy wrote a fiction novel portraying it as bad.

OTOH bodybuilding (the part people care about) and some strength sports allow PEDs. Some people do die young from steroid abuse, but not a lot of top dogs.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#87

Post by cannonpr »

riversflow wrote: post #85
cannonpr wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I think there are many layers and levels to sport engagement, and also there are clear studies that wealthier societies pump more into sport. Studies do show that more well off societies get more super athletes etc. However there is also other data: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2020/02/24/sur... Yes their parents do need to be well off enough to support them, but these are people that still strugg…

> I don’t think you will find many tech CEO sons doping to be the next Armstrong. Counterpoint: Rich people still end up with Heroin addictions. From what I've seen, doping is almost irresistible if you start down the path of high performance and have the cash to support it. People who are doping don't think they are destroying their body, they think they are unlocking their true potential. This is doubly true if you…

Fair but under that worldview which I admit is likely in athletes, one is more likely to have sound advice and a medical team trying to do their best for them, the other less so. I’d speculate a US medical team keen on a gold metal is less likely to have the same morals as a privately paid one. However one caveat, at this point I am far outside what I can substantiate via direct experience or data.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#88

Post by pessimizer »

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.…

You don't want people competing on doping. Doping freely would ultimately lead to bodily destruction being a minimum requirement to compete at a high level. A PED competition is something that is more appropriate for laboratories and test subjects (hopefully non-human.) Is cycling supposed to be a sport or a carnival act?

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#89

Post by pessimizer »

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).

Better that than a competition of who is most willing to destroy their health. Open doping would become extreme quickly.

edit: and it seems pointless to "solve" the problem of different genetics, because genetics would also influence how you reacted to PEDs. It's just adding a thing.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#90

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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…

Armstrong is basically a charming narcissist. Giving him leeway for his destructive behavior isn't really warranted.

Here is a good recent interview with LeMond that delves into the Armstrong era:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xq5PQvBFvI

Remember that Trek dropped LeMond's bike line because he was speaking out about the cheating.

Another recent interview of Armstrong with a sympathetic Bill Maher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlDKKez4q7o

Post reply on HN