Netflix duo...
#1
Netflix duo...
Armstrong Lies and Icarus.
Really opened my eyes more to what I already thought was (is) happening.
Really opened my eyes more to what I already thought was (is) happening.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,015
Bikes: Paletti,Pinarello Monviso,Duell Vienna,Giordana XL Super,Lemond Maillot Juane.& custom,PDG Paramount,Fuji Opus III,Davidson Impulse,Pashley Guv'nor,Evans,Fishlips,Y-Foil,Softride, Tetra Pro, CAAD8 Optimo,
Liked 6,253 Times
in
2,010 Posts
Does anyone believe thr pro peloton is clean even today?
__________________
Steel is real...and comfy.
Steel is real...and comfy.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 2,841
Bikes: 2009 Handsome Devil, 1987 Trek 520 Cirrus, 1978 Motobecane Grand Touring, 1987 Nishiki Cresta GT, 1989 Specialized Allez Former bikes; 1986 Miyata Trail Runner, 1979 Miyata 912, 2011 VO Rando, 1999 Cannondale R800, 1986 Schwinn Passage
Liked 526 Times
in
369 Posts
I still occasionally watch the TdF especially the mountain stages but I have no illusions and I doubt it has every been 'Clean" going back to the beginning. As for he who must not be named- that guy has already claimed more than enough of my time so I will pass on his documentary. Inspired to ride is a interesting cycle documentry on Netflix. I have no desire to do that sort of riding but it was a good film.
#6
Senior Member
I read all the Armstrong books and believed him at the time. I have come this far so I might as well see the movie too.
__________________
80 Mercian Olympic, 92 DB Overdrive, '07 Rivendell AHH, '16 Clockwork All-Rounder
80 Mercian Olympic, 92 DB Overdrive, '07 Rivendell AHH, '16 Clockwork All-Rounder
#8
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,515
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Liked 2,814 Times
in
1,808 Posts
Looking forward to watching Icarus. But it won't change my opinion. Doping should be legalized. There are several valid reasons why anti-doping is not only doomed to fail, but wrongheaded.
First of all, technology cannot be denied. That is the nature of tech. If a thing can be done, it will be done. There is no point in history where any technological advancement was successfully thwarted, whether by peer pressure or reguation. Technology always prevails because it has no agenda other than to exist. If it offers something humans want, humans will acquire and use it. No exceptions, ever.
Attempting to ban doping only serves to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. The best funded athletes will prevail because they can afford the medical specialists, attorneys and bribes needed to hide the doping. Meanwhile the less prosperous athletes will be left irretrievably behind.
There is a lot of money in sports, increasingly with little distinction between professional and amateur. Money changes everything. Even amateur events have long been tainted by external forces -- mainly gambling -- and internal forces, mainly the athletes themselves who crave success at any price.
Even more than cycling, professional boxing is an example of the pervasive effect of money and power on every aspect of the game, including doping. Does anyone really believe the great champion Juan Manuel Marquez really bulked up from his peak featherweight form to welterweight just drinking his own urine to fight Floyd Mayweather in 2009? Look carefully at the high resolution photos and videos of Marquez in 2009 against Mayweather, and again in 2012 when Marquez knocked out Manny Pacquiao. Marquez was ripped, faster and stronger at the same weight. That doesn't happen from drinking urine. And Pacquiao is also unquestionably also a doper. Moving up from flyweight to welterweight and still looking ripped, lean and strong, without PEDs? Not very damn likely. In the entire history of the greatest boxing champs before the contemporary PED era, there is not a single comparable example of a great champion moving up that many weight classes without getting pudgy.
There's too much money involved all around to stop it. And it's pointless to stop it because, in the minds of the athletes, they're already taking risks to their health and lives just to participate in the sport, even without doping. A boxer can be permanently disabled or killed by brain damage. A cyclist can be disabled or killed by a crash. Why *wouldn't* they want the advantages of anything that makes them stronger, faster, better able to control themselves to evade danger in a split second?
It's not just about winning. It's about creating the best possible human instrument.
Pretty soon we'll be forced to stop moralizing about human development when we're confronted with genetically enhanced specimens of humans from China, Russia and other countries that don't cripple themselves with backward thinking about maximizing the human potential. We'll either adapt or be left behind.
Keep in mind these advances that enhance athletic performance are akin to technological advances used in car racing that are eventually adopted by the consumer automobile industry to make our vehicles safer, more reliable and fuel efficient.
By permitting any form of enhancement to professional athletes, we'll see developments that benefit us all, in making us healthier, stronger, better able to recover from injuries and illnesses, and to repair those damages.
It will also encourage development of enhancements that won't harm an athlete's health. This under the table, back alley stuff only leads to poor quality and practices. Sure, some athletes may continue to choose risky stuff, or take too much, hoping for an advantage over more naturally gifted and skilled opponents. But decriminalizing or legitimizing PEDs and physical enhancement will give more participants the information and ability to choose proven methods that pose less risk to their health.
Or we could just choose to be cavemen and pretend the world around us isn't changing.
First of all, technology cannot be denied. That is the nature of tech. If a thing can be done, it will be done. There is no point in history where any technological advancement was successfully thwarted, whether by peer pressure or reguation. Technology always prevails because it has no agenda other than to exist. If it offers something humans want, humans will acquire and use it. No exceptions, ever.
Attempting to ban doping only serves to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. The best funded athletes will prevail because they can afford the medical specialists, attorneys and bribes needed to hide the doping. Meanwhile the less prosperous athletes will be left irretrievably behind.
There is a lot of money in sports, increasingly with little distinction between professional and amateur. Money changes everything. Even amateur events have long been tainted by external forces -- mainly gambling -- and internal forces, mainly the athletes themselves who crave success at any price.
Even more than cycling, professional boxing is an example of the pervasive effect of money and power on every aspect of the game, including doping. Does anyone really believe the great champion Juan Manuel Marquez really bulked up from his peak featherweight form to welterweight just drinking his own urine to fight Floyd Mayweather in 2009? Look carefully at the high resolution photos and videos of Marquez in 2009 against Mayweather, and again in 2012 when Marquez knocked out Manny Pacquiao. Marquez was ripped, faster and stronger at the same weight. That doesn't happen from drinking urine. And Pacquiao is also unquestionably also a doper. Moving up from flyweight to welterweight and still looking ripped, lean and strong, without PEDs? Not very damn likely. In the entire history of the greatest boxing champs before the contemporary PED era, there is not a single comparable example of a great champion moving up that many weight classes without getting pudgy.
There's too much money involved all around to stop it. And it's pointless to stop it because, in the minds of the athletes, they're already taking risks to their health and lives just to participate in the sport, even without doping. A boxer can be permanently disabled or killed by brain damage. A cyclist can be disabled or killed by a crash. Why *wouldn't* they want the advantages of anything that makes them stronger, faster, better able to control themselves to evade danger in a split second?
It's not just about winning. It's about creating the best possible human instrument.
Pretty soon we'll be forced to stop moralizing about human development when we're confronted with genetically enhanced specimens of humans from China, Russia and other countries that don't cripple themselves with backward thinking about maximizing the human potential. We'll either adapt or be left behind.
Keep in mind these advances that enhance athletic performance are akin to technological advances used in car racing that are eventually adopted by the consumer automobile industry to make our vehicles safer, more reliable and fuel efficient.
By permitting any form of enhancement to professional athletes, we'll see developments that benefit us all, in making us healthier, stronger, better able to recover from injuries and illnesses, and to repair those damages.
It will also encourage development of enhancements that won't harm an athlete's health. This under the table, back alley stuff only leads to poor quality and practices. Sure, some athletes may continue to choose risky stuff, or take too much, hoping for an advantage over more naturally gifted and skilled opponents. But decriminalizing or legitimizing PEDs and physical enhancement will give more participants the information and ability to choose proven methods that pose less risk to their health.
Or we could just choose to be cavemen and pretend the world around us isn't changing.
#9
Senior Member
Thanks! Was just scrolling for a new series or something to watch tonight.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Big Apple
Posts: 1,447
Bikes: yes
Likes: 0
Liked 476 Times
in
192 Posts
Armstrong's biggest crime wasn't doping, it was using his influence and power to try and destroy anyone who pointed out his lies. While he may still be a great cyclist, with or without the doping, it's hard to look at the facts and not come away with the belief he's a sociopath and a pathological liar.
#11
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,670
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Liked 2,600 Times
in
1,593 Posts
#13
Forum Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kalamazoo MI
Posts: 21,179
Bikes: Fuji SL2.1 Carbon Di2 Cannondale Synapse Alloy Viscount Aerospace Pro Raleigh C50 Cromoly Hybrid Legnano Tipo Roma Pista
Liked 7,517 Times
in
4,200 Posts
Thread moved from C&V to General Cycling.
#15
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,515
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Liked 2,814 Times
in
1,808 Posts
Or any sport - even curling.
And that's about the last drug I'd want to take. I had a prescription for propranolol several years ago to help control migraines. The stuff made me feel dopey and it aggravates asthma in some people, including me. I already have a hard enough time breathing while exercising.
#16
Clark W. Griswold
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 14,673
Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26
Liked 4,570 Times
in
3,061 Posts
While I don't care for doping, it seems like it is happening and we need to figure out how to best deal with it. Banning it doesn't work because then you create a criminal aspect and make people want to do it and making it a legal free for all also might not make sense because then maybe people will decide screw it and just go crazy.
I wish Armstrong had come out and admitted to doping right away and didn't turn out to be such a jerk about it. He was kind of exciting and I loathe to think about him as a villain rather than just a great cyclist who also happened to dope.
I wish Armstrong had come out and admitted to doping right away and didn't turn out to be such a jerk about it. He was kind of exciting and I loathe to think about him as a villain rather than just a great cyclist who also happened to dope.
#17
Full Member
Very thoughtful post Canklecat. No easy answers here for sure as I agree that it will always be around. The problem, I see is if we open that pandora's box and make doping legal what does that mean? Everything and anything OK? We will then see lots of athletes dropping dead because, I agree with you there will be a percentage of folks that will do and take anything to win.
With the transhuman movent gaining steam (God help us) will a computer chip implanted in you to fire your leg muscles faster be OK if it does the same thing as a formally banned, now accepted drug but has no ill heath effects? How about nano motor knees? We already have "mechanical doping". When does it not become "you" that's winning. How will we define "you"? Look at a new state H.S. men's wrestling champ (forget the state) who was a born "she" now transitioning to a "he" and takes massive dosage testosterone. This OK/fair? Should her/his competitors be allowed the same drug at the same dosage to level the playing field?
Guess the counter argument to a no drug ban is the "slippery slope" one. For sure no easy answers.
With the transhuman movent gaining steam (God help us) will a computer chip implanted in you to fire your leg muscles faster be OK if it does the same thing as a formally banned, now accepted drug but has no ill heath effects? How about nano motor knees? We already have "mechanical doping". When does it not become "you" that's winning. How will we define "you"? Look at a new state H.S. men's wrestling champ (forget the state) who was a born "she" now transitioning to a "he" and takes massive dosage testosterone. This OK/fair? Should her/his competitors be allowed the same drug at the same dosage to level the playing field?
Guess the counter argument to a no drug ban is the "slippery slope" one. For sure no easy answers.
#18
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,855
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Liked 1,613 Times
in
1,061 Posts
Isn't the trick about how do you make prescription drugs legally prescribed by doctors who are legally obligated to only prescribe for necessity? IOW, how do you make prescription drugs legal for pro echelon athletes, but not for anyone else?
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,758
Bikes: Canyon Aeroad, CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX, Guru steel & Guru Photon
Liked 1,429 Times
in
835 Posts
Armstrong's biggest crime wasn't doping, it was using his influence and power to try and destroy anyone who pointed out his lies. While he may still be a great cyclist, with or without the doping, it's hard to look at the facts and not come away with the belief he's a sociopath and a pathological liar.
#20
Let's Ride!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Triad, NC USA
Posts: 2,582
Bikes: --2010 Jamis 650b1-- 2016 Cervelo R2-- 2018 Salsa Journeyman 650B
Liked 40 Times
in
27 Posts
Icarus is on my list to watch but I have not gotten around to it. is it depressing? someone said it was heavy. I am tired of the sad, bad news.
#21
The Left Coast, USA
Heavy? I thought it was more of a comedy, OK a black comedy perhaps. Afterall, Bryan Fogel, stand-up comic turned Jewtopia playwright, turned cycling geek, turned documentarian... not exactly a 60 Minutes treatment.
#22
The Left Coast, USA
I think the arch of history tends to (slowly) bend in the other direction Think communism, fascism, DDT, genetic engineering, fossil fuels dependency, CTE, etc., etc. The advantages of doping are fairly obvious, but I doubt human beings will ever fully consent to it as acceptable practice or a necessity for society. My sense is AI is far more likely to be embraced and blindly accepted.
#23
Calamari Marionette Ph.D
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,947
Bikes: Trek 1100 road bike, Roadmaster gravel/commuter/beater mountain bike
Liked 1,711 Times
in
937 Posts
While I don't care for doping, it seems like it is happening and we need to figure out how to best deal with it. Banning it doesn't work because then you create a criminal aspect and make people want to do it and making it a legal free for all also might not make sense because then maybe people will decide screw it and just go crazy.
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-l...olympics/n9691
#25
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,515
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Liked 2,814 Times
in
1,808 Posts