Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [dogmile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dogmile wrote:
So if there was an out and back race and the top 5 finishers cut the course short. But first place cut the course short significantly more than the others... you would consider that a level playing field?
...
Jctriguy wrote:

I'm responding to the topic of a level playing field amount the dopers. To me, a level playing field means they all started with the same opportunity. The decisions Armstrong made could've been made by any of the other riders. They decided to dope and cheat, from there it was a level playing field. He didn't start out rich. He took huge risks and for 15years reaped the rewards of those risks. The ones who decided not to dope obviously were at a massive disadvantage.

I think you might be confusing the concept of a level playing field with an outcome that was fair. In your example, the race wasn't completed fairly but it was a level playing field. Everyone had the same opportunity to cheat and cut the course short.
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [Jctriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jctriguy wrote:


I think you might be confusing the concept of a level playing field with an outcome that was fair. In your example, the race wasn't completed fairly but it was a level playing field. Everyone had the same opportunity to cheat and cut the course short.


Do you think the UCI would have worked so hard to protect a rider from Botswana? Really?

Again, I am discussing the significant advantage Armstrong had over other dopers. He says the outcome was fair. It wasn't The ethics discussion is difficult to quantify.
Last edited by: julian D: Feb 28, 15 16:56
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [Jctriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jctriguy wrote:

Yes, certainly twisting your words.

Thank you for admitting that, please do not do it again
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [julian D] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
julian D wrote:
Jctriguy wrote:


Yes, certainly twisting your words.


Thank you for admitting that, please do not do it again


As I'm sure you are aware, that was sarcasm in my post. You are as bad as anyone for taking this out of context or changing the meaning to suit your needs.

I'll step out now, back to your discussion with arch.
Last edited by: Jctriguy: Feb 28, 15 17:15
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [Jctriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, I just think your definition of a level playing field is strange.

Imagine first place paid a course marshal to help him cut the course the shortest and look the other way. It is still a level playing field for you because others could do the same.

Then imaging first place arranges for a rival to get food poisoning. Still a level playing field because others could do the same.

I can see the confusion, as I'm pretty sure you are the only one using this definition of level playing field.


..
Jctriguy wrote:
dogmile wrote:
So if there was an out and back race and the top 5 finishers cut the course short. But first place cut the course short significantly more than the others... you would consider that a level playing field?
...
Jctriguy wrote:

I'm responding to the topic of a level playing field amount the dopers. To me, a level playing field means they all started with the same opportunity. The decisions Armstrong made could've been made by any of the other riders. They decided to dope and cheat, from there it was a level playing field. He didn't start out rich. He took huge risks and for 15years reaped the rewards of those risks. The ones who decided not to dope obviously were at a massive disadvantage.


I think you might be confusing the concept of a level playing field with an outcome that was fair. In your example, the race wasn't completed fairly but it was a level playing field. Everyone had the same opportunity to cheat and cut the course short.
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [dogmile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dogmile wrote:
No, I just think your definition of a level playing field is strange.

Imagine first place paid a course marshal to help him cut the course the shortest and look the other way. It is still a level playing field for you because others could do the same.

Then imaging first place arranges for a rival to get food poisoning. Still a level playing field because others could do the same.

I can see the confusion, as I'm pretty sure you are the only one using this definition of level playing field.


First, I'm talking about the level playing field among the dopers/cheaters. So in your situations, I would have a hard time paying attention to someone who protested the race results based on paying off an official, when the person protesting had also knowingly cut the course.

A level playing field in my mind, probably better referred to as equal opportunity, means that there is no advantage conferred to anyone based on their individual traits. "Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences".

The challenge I see in this discussion of a level playing field, is the number of irrelevant topics that are included. Money is not relevant here. Everyone had access to the same pots of money, the fact that some gained more benefit from that money isn't relevant. The fact that some are better able to attract that money and work those relationships isn't relevant. The fact that some respond better to doping is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Based on the above definition, the only area that I'd soften my view would be the UCI treatment of Armstrong and the possible motives behind that. I don't think it is a simple discussion, since it depends on how and why that protection started. To me, it would be significantly different if Armstrong put everything in motion and pulled the UCI onto his side vs the UCI seeing the expansion of the USA market as a huge plus and Armstrong as the person to bring in the market. Was Armstrong more willing to take risks with doping because he had protection? Or, was he naturally a risk taker and would've pushed the limits regardless of the protection? He started doping very early in his career and seemed more willing than others to increase his doping program. I'd suspct that it was a bit of both, his willingness to push the boundaries and his willingness to bring the UCI on board for protection.
Last edited by: Jctriguy: Feb 28, 15 18:30
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [Jctriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jctriguy wrote:
. Money is not relevant here. Everyone had access to the same pots of money, the fact that some gained more benefit from that money isn't relevant.


Who do you mean by "everyone?" If by "everyone" you mean the top 10 or so GC guys, then, yes, maybe. Most top teams have benefactors with big pockets, probably willing to spend big on the top few guys on their teams. But there are ProTour teams that are relatively destitute, who struggle to just make basic payroll month to month. And then there are the Continental teams who often race big races who are even more destitute.

Quote:
The fact that some are better able to attract that money and work those relationships isn't relevant.


I disagree. It's quite relevant. Because it requires skilled personnel in black marketeering. Moving large sums of money around surreptitiously, and often illegally. Entering that black market "playing field" is outside the transparently stated legitimate avenues of competition. It requires people skilled in illegal acquisition and transport of prescription drugs. This, to me, is little different than engaging the UCI bureaucracy for competitive advantage. It's "not level" because those things are against either the publicly stated rules of the UCI or actual criminal law. What the top doping teams did was create a second set of secret de facto rules contrary to the publicly stated rules. You might argue that the second set of rules was open to anyone willing to take those risks and develop those types of relationships. But I disagree with that. Strongly. Because when you sign your name to the official set of rules, that means something to me. Agreeing to a public, transparent, common set of rules is the essence of sport. It defines the playing field.
Last edited by: trail: Feb 28, 15 18:52
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [Jctriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting debate so far….

To a certain degree I agree with one of your previous posts…..something along the lines of "does anyone think this is odd that we are discussing "level playing field within the context of cheating" Not a direct quote from you but I would agree.

Sort of like discussing who was the best 1920-1930's gangster or who is the best current bank robber, or why has the street level drug dealer been denied opportunity over that "Nights templar" guy in Mexico.

No dog in this fight, honestly don't really care. I would be interested if someone had V02 info on LA post early 90's. In 1991 (according to Julian D link) he had a VO2 max of 6.2L I find it curious how he fluctuated between 6.2 and 5.2L IIRC Indurain (internet speculation) had total of 7L which is very high for a cyclist (I think highest).

6.2L is pretty good for a 20 year old….although he was 180cm at 80kg.

With doping and weight loss it isn't unreasonable that he could get to 6.7L or so at….what was his tour weight? 72-75kg

Anyways, I know you and JD disagree but it has been a great thread so far.

Maurice
Last edited by: mauricemaher: Feb 28, 15 19:04
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [julian D] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're a complete retard! Not partial! Complete!! Feel proud!
Quote Reply
Post deleted by BorrachoMatador [ In reply to ]
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [julian D] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
julian D wrote:

Oh brother.....equating the response to doping to the response to training is ridiculous. If you find a training method that gives a seasoned Pro as massive a difference in response as Oxygen vector doping please let us know.

Sure, whatever training method Greg Lemond was using to beat all those dopers.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Lance on the newest Lava Cover and LA 7 article!! [TrekGeek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TrekGeek wrote:
Best Lava to date! Finally, someone who thinks as I do. Flame away!!

I recently watched "Stop at Nothing. The Lance Armstrong Story". I have always felt he got punishment exceeding others who cheated... BUT, after watching that movie, and the words that came out of HIS mouth... well, he is a $%&*-hole of a human being. I personally don't need to read anymore articles.

Colorado Triathlon Company, CO2UT 2021, Crooked Gravel 2022, Steamboat Gravel 2022
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Administrator [ In reply to ]
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [gabbiev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gabbiev wrote:
BLeP wrote:
julian D wrote:


Oh brother.....equating the response to doping to the response to training is ridiculous. If you find a training method that gives a seasoned Pro as massive a difference in response as Oxygen vector doping please let us know.


Sure, whatever training method Greg Lemond was using to beat all those dopers.


You really need to get your time frames correct, you know.

I took BLEP's statement to mean the dopers of THAT time (meaning maybe pre EPO but they were using something else. Unless you are saying everyone was clean back then
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Administrator [ In reply to ]
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [gabbiev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gabbiev wrote:
Runguy wrote:
gabbiev wrote:
BLeP wrote:
julian D wrote:


Oh brother.....equating the response to doping to the response to training is ridiculous. If you find a training method that gives a seasoned Pro as massive a difference in response as Oxygen vector doping please let us know.


Sure, whatever training method Greg Lemond was using to beat all those dopers.


You really need to get your time frames correct, you know.


I took BLEP's statement to mean the dopers of THAT time (meaning maybe pre EPO but they were using something else. Unless you are saying everyone was clean back then


Nope--what I am saying is that blood manipulation became endemic post 1990. Most of the doping in cycling pre-EPO era did not have the same significant effect as blood manipulation. My response was meant to suggest that the poster isn't considering the granularity of the issue of doping in cycling. Some riders had massive talents; other riders had massive resources and complicity to circumvent rules. I'd suggest that Lemond was in the former group.

I know what you are suggesting. I do not buy into the "massive talent overcomes rampant cheating" fairy tale.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Greg did beat Laurent who later admitted doping
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [dogmile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dogmile wrote:
No, I just think your definition of a level playing field is strange.

Imagine first place paid a course marshal to help him cut the course the shortest and look the other way. It is still a level playing field for you because others could do the same.

Then imaging first place arranges for a rival to get food poisoning. Still a level playing field because others could do the same.

I can see the confusion, as I'm pretty sure you are the only one using this definition of level playing field.

There are limits to just how level a playing field ever is. Is everyone riding the same bike, using the same wheels? Unless you can fix every variable it's never truly level in that respect. But when you consider that everyone has equal opportunity, then it's just as level as training opportunity. Not everyone has to or is willing to train as hard either.

What about when LeMond used aero bars in a TT when no one else did. What that a level playing field?
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
I disagree. It's quite relevant. Because it requires skilled personnel in black marketeering. Moving large sums of money around surreptitiously, and often illegally. Entering that black market "playing field" is outside the transparently stated legitimate avenues of competition.

There are age group folks getting busted for doping, just how hard do you think it is? It's not some James Bond movie stuff.
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [mcmetal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mcmetal wrote:
trail wrote:

There are age group folks getting busted for doping, just how hard do you think it is? It's not some James Bond movie stuff.

I think you need an example of age-grouper dopers *not* getting busted to make the point you're trying to?

But my opinion is that with the bio passport and frequent random out-of-competition testing (neither of which happens to AGers) it gets pretty hard. And less effective. Doping at the margins rather than the wholesale chemical warfare of the 90s. Unless theres some new undetectable method out there. Which is always possible. But no method will remain secret forever.
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
mcmetal wrote:
trail wrote:


There are age group folks getting busted for doping, just how hard do you think it is? It's not some James Bond movie stuff.


I think you need an example of age-grouper dopers *not* getting busted to make the point you're trying to?

But my opinion is that with the bio passport and frequent random out-of-competition testing (neither of which happens to AGers) it gets pretty hard. And less effective. Doping at the margins rather than the wholesale chemical warfare of the 90s. Unless theres some new undetectable method out there. Which is always possible. But no method will remain secret forever.

Not really. The fact that very little testing is done on age groupers and the fact that they caught some confirms that it takes place and leads me to the conclusion that it takes place more often than I would have thought.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by adal [ In reply to ]
Re: Lance on the newest Lava Cover and LA 7 article!! [winchester] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
would like to know the circulation numbers for this issue, versus others
Quote Reply
Re: New Lava and LA 7 article!! [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Arch Stanton wrote:
Clempson wrote:
what is your point?


His point is that Lance is da evil. Funny how he keeps lying about the extent of doping in order to put more blame on LA.

Lol, you are like a comic book character. Everything you say is hilarious, in this thread and every other you post in.

Honestly, this thread is just a bunch of dogs barking at each other
Quote Reply

Prev Next