livedarklions

Both kinds of judgment require context, but often differ regarding which factors of context may apply. Suffice it to say, I don't think "I needed to do it to feed my children" is on the same moral plain as "I needed to do it to make sure I got my 5th yellow jersey." You've plopped yourself into "the ends justify the means" hell here with this one. If you're going that way morally, you need to at least acknowledge that feeding our children is itself a moral imperative, while doing despicable things to other people to win the jersey is just abandoning right and wrong for reasons of naked ambition.

Eric F 

I think I'm starting to understand why Lance Armstrong was a forbidden topic.

Harold74

More personal attacks and bullying.

I keep getting threatened with this ignore list business but nobody ever seems to follow through. The bitter parties just keep resurfacing. And that's too bad because I really don't want to talk to people who don't want to talk to me.

So, please, put me on that ignore list. I want that.

Carbonfiberboy 

And those criticisms are warranted. Never said they weren't. It's still true that Lance woke up US cycling, made cyclists much less likely to be dopers, and inspired many young people. He started a revolution in cycling by showing up the lax regulation which permitted him to do what he did.

Looking back through history, many positive changes originated with people who took things too far. Marie Curie died of radiation poisoning. We can criticize him but we should also recognize that he forced reforms on race management. As Jacques Anquetil said, “You can’t ride the Tour de France on mineral water.” That's still true, but we now at least try to make the playing field more equal, which it wasn't back in Anquetil's day and wasn't right up to Lance's finally losing his jerseys.

It's the old story of radar speed traps vs. radar detectors. Chemistry both enabled riders to dope and provided the means to detect said doping. Back in Anquetil's day, doping wasn't detectable. Then a long period where it was detectable, but race officials declined to test riders lest there be a shadow on racing. Lance rather broke that model. If he'd only won two Tours, maybe nothing would have happened and there's still be doping. But no, Lance couldn't resist.

So we can say that actually Lance did the sport a favor and at great personal cost. Don't worry, be happy!

tomato coupe

That's a warped perspective. It's like claiming a criminal did criminology a favor at great personal cost.

livedarklions

Should we credit al Qaeda for their contributions to airline security?

mstateglfr 

Havent read more than 10 posts in this thread, dont think I need to and probably havent missed much.
Anyways, just came here to say that Lance can still drive responses faster than a hot take from Grant Petersen.

I dare say- this thread has gotten to 9 pages quicker than most rydabent threads.

Eric F 

Unfortunately, the history that we've seen with PED use in pro cycling - since before Lemond's era - has been rampant enough to throw a cloud of suspicion over everyone in the sport. I've been a fan of bike racing since the Lemond era, and would like to think that he was a clean rider. There certainly hasn't been any concrete evidence (that I'm aware of) to contradict that conclusion, but no one admits to doping until they get caught. However, we know doping technologies existed at the time, and testing technologies were not nearly as advanced as they are now. To me, it's enough to ponder whether Greg was actually clean, or whether he was far enough ahead of the testing curve to never get caught. It sucks that I question it, but here we are. I understand that people may have different viewpoints. I'm not trying to argue for or against anything. This is just where my own thoughts are on the situation.

Eric F 

It would be a crappy position to take, but that argument could be made. Just to be clear, I will not be one who takes that position.

Harold74

There you go again with the bullying, personal insults. You do realize that to accuse me of engaging in sophistry is to accuse me of lying deliberately with the intention to deceive? Is that you making use of your killer debate class training to subdue me with rational argument?

That's right, it's not. What has been bullying has been your persistently hurling bullying, personal insults at me which, so far, include implying that I am the following:

- Immoral.
- Nasty.
- A deliberate liar.
- An idiot.
- A babbling bull*hitter.
- Scummy.
- Convoluted.
- Despicable.
- Incoherent.
- A Whiner.

These are all your words. And all of that in the course of a single discussion and without a single response in kind from me. Not one!

Are you really telling me that, If someone spoke this way to your wife or one of your kids in real life, you wouldn't call that bullying??

What on earth suggests to you that I cannot take the "backlash"? I'm still here, taking it, aren't I? It is you threatening to pack it in:

And yes, I will "whine" about being bullied one more time given that, in this one post, you have added "nasty", "immoral", "incoherent", and "willful liar" to your arm's long list of insulting, personal slurs.

Can I be a promiscuous masseuse as well??

livedarklions

There's a world of difference between what you're saying here and what's irked me so much about Harold's posts. You're basically saying we can't entirely eliminate the possibility that GL doped. I happen to think it's pretty damned unlikely as there's certainly been a lot of people who would've loved to expose him if it had been the case. Harold, OTOH, has said we should just assume that GL was a) guilty and b) a hypocrite because of "probability". To me, that kind of unfounded assumption of guilt in the absence of any individualized proof is just morally reprehensible.

Eric F 

I get where you're coming from, and my intent is not to defend Harold. You think Greg doping was "pretty damned unlikely". Harold thinks there's an assumption due to "probability". I would put myself somewhere in the middle of those two positions. Greg was a spectacular racer, but the history of the sport leaves me less than 100% certain he was clean. (IMO, YMMV)

StanSeven

Too many personal insults to delete and clean up. Thread closed.