Lance

On 16 Jun 2004 22:42:10 GMT, [email hidden]

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

This really sounds like a typical Drudge Report revelation.

The timing certainly seems intended for maximum damage.
Nevertheless he'll hear a lot of abuse on the course
because of it.

I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in the Tour
de 'Toona many years ago. Lance didn't do too well that year
and the local guys were unimpressed. His accomplishments
speak for themselves. Obviously I didn't know what happened
to his marriage, but I'm a little disappointed he divorced
and went Hollywood.

I read this snippet:

intel-intel-Open ↗
dump.com/archives/archive_2004_06_14.shtml#1087353667

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lance takes his fight to court

Lance Armstrong, the five-time winner of the Tour De France
who made a miraculous recovery from testicular cancer
several years ago, has taken a British author to court for
libel according to Wednesday's New York Times. Despite his
serious medical history, Lance has been the victim of doping
charges for some time now. For the most part, he has
responded with a characteristically Texan "Yeah, I've taken
drugs -- it's called chemo you dirtbag!" to these charges in
the past. But this time, Lance has retaliated with a libel
case in British court. (Based on my limited understanding of
UK libel law, it's easier for a public figure to establish
libel there because British law does not have any of the
U.S. Constitutional limitations on libel for public figures.
But I'm certainly no expert on US -- let alone UK -- libel
law, so I defer to the real experts on this one.)

As with all of his endeavors, I wish Lance good luck on this
one. He's been a hero of mine for a long time, even before
his bout with cancer. However this litigation turns out, I
wish him the best of luck during this racing season, and I
look forward to his sixth consecutive Tour De France victory
this July.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name
to reply by e-mail)

Larry Weisenthal said:

This really sounds like a typical Drudge Report revelation.

The quote from the publisher was - 'we're not claiming
anything - we're just putting out all the evidence for the
reader to decide.'

That aside, I'm a bit surprised anyone cares a bit about his
divorce and new girlfriend. He's certainly not the only man
out there whose marriage didn't last, and consider the
strains his career put on his. To train and succeed at his
level you have to make priorities a bit different than the
rest of us. Can't have it all.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Donal Fagan <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in the
Tour de 'Toona many years ago. Lance didn't do too well
that year and the local guys were unimpressed.

I think the data exactly the opposite. While still a
teenager (maybe 15) he did a triathlon with Dave Scott, who
by then had won the Hawaiian Ironman a number of times. And
kept up with him on the bike! And World Champion at 21, the
youngest ever. I always hate to sound so pro-American on
these things, but I honestly don't think he needs to cheat
to be the best. He's a God-given talent who was a World
class rider at 170 lbs. Post chemo at 155, he's the best in
the World.

But that divorce thing is really disappointing. But here's
the deal. If we expect him to be a good father and
husband, where's he supposed to have learned that? He
never met his biological father. And he's completely
estranged from the man whose name he bears. He has a half-
sister he's never met.

World class thighs, lungs, and heart. No talent or training
for family.

Eric

Quoted message said:

That aside, I'm a bit surprised anyone cares a bit about
his divorce and new girlfriend. He's certainly not the
only man out there whose marriage didn't last, and
consider the strains his career put on his. To train and
succeed at his level you have to make priorities a bit
different than the rest of us. Can't have it all.

--
Jason O'Rourke

The reason anyone cares about Lance is because of his books--
he put it out there: the romance, the "family matters above
all" sentiments, etc. He is the one cradling his children in
his arms when he celebrates a race or has a book cover to
decorate. He is certainly the ONLY man who has done what he
has AND then failed at marriage and family life. He put
himself in the public eye with certain images and then
turned around and destroyed the images he created. That's
why anyone cares.

Pat in TX

(4precious) said:

Donal Fagan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in the
Tour de 'Toona many years ago. Lance didn't do too well
that year and the local guys were unimpressed.

I think the data exactly the opposite. While still a
teenager (maybe 15) he did a triathlon with Dave Scott, who
by then had won the Hawaiian Ironman a number of times. And
kept up with him on the bike! And World Champion at 21, the
youngest ever. I always hate to sound so pro-American on
these things, but I honestly don't think he needs to cheat
to be the best. He's a God-given talent who was a World
class rider at 170 lbs. Post chemo at 155, he's the best in
the World.

Well, if God gave it to him, then it isn't a great personal
achievment.

Quoted message said:

But that divorce thing is really disappointing. But here's
the deal. If we expect him to be a good father and
husband, where's he supposed to have learned that? He
never met his biological father. And he's completely
estranged from the man whose name he bears. He has a half-
sister he's never met.

World class thighs, lungs, and heart. No talent or training
for family.

Eric

On 16 Jun 2004 22:14:22 -0700, [email hidden]
(4precious) wrote:

Lance didn't do too well that year and the local guys were
unimpressed.

Quoted message said:

I think the data exactly the opposite.

Well, he came in with a big rep, but didn't show much at
the 'Toona that year. Wish I'd watched, but the races were
mostly during working hours and I wasn't self-employed
back then.

Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name
to reply by e-mail)

Mike Edey said:

Martin W. Smith said:

(4precious) said:

Donal Fagan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in the
> Tour de 'Toona many years ago. Lance didn't do too well
> that year and the local guys were unimpressed.

I think the data exactly the opposite. While still a
teenager (maybe 15) he did a triathlon with Dave Scott,
who by then had won the Hawaiian Ironman a number of
times. And kept up with him on the bike! And World
Champion at 21, the youngest ever. I always hate to sound
so pro-American on these things, but I honestly don't
think he needs to cheat to be the best. He's a God-given
talent who was a World class rider at 170 lbs. Post chemo
at 155, he's the best in the World.

Well, if God gave it to him, then it isn't a great
personal achievment.

Sure it i - just because he was born with the possibilty
doesn't mean it was handed to him on a silver plate.
Trianing is, to a great extent, simply the process of
learning to hurt more. Lance was simply born with the
ability to hurt more, and perform better under such
circumstances, then (likely) any other body on the planet.
This doesn't mean it's easy.

Like I said, then it isn't a great personal achievement. You
are saying he was given an unusual innate ability. He didn't
earn it. The guy who finished last, who wasn't given that
innate ability and who had to work a lot harder than Lance
just to get into the race, let alone finish, achieved much
more. In fact, we can probably rate the personal achievement
of all the riders in the race by reversing the order of
finish. So Lance's achievement was least impressive.

Well, coming back from cancer is impressive, but any person
born with the right genese can become an elite athlete. They
have an unfair advantage, right?

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike Edey said:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:34:00 +0200, Martin W. Smith

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (4precious) wrote:

>Donal Fagan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:<[email hidden]>...
>> I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in
>> the Tour de 'Toona many years ago. Lance didn't do
>> too well that year and the local guys were
>> unimpressed.
>
>I think the data exactly the opposite. While still a
>teenager (maybe 15) he did a triathlon with Dave Scott,
>who by then had won the Hawaiian Ironman a number of
>times. And kept up with him on the bike! And World
>Champion at 21, the youngest ever. I always hate to
>sound so pro-American on these things, but I honestly
>don't think he needs to cheat to be the best. He's a
>God-given talent who was a World class rider at 170
>lbs. Post chemo at 155, he's the best in the World.

Well, if God gave it to him, then it isn't a great
personal achievment.

Sure it i - just because he was born with the possibilty
doesn't mean it was handed to him on a silver plate.
Trianing is, to a great extent, simply the process of
learning to hurt more. Lance was simply born with the
ability to hurt more, and perform better under such
circumstances, then (likely) any other body on the
planet. This doesn't mean it's easy.

Like I said, then it isn't a great personal achievement.
You are saying he was given an unusual innate ability. He
didn't earn it. The guy who finished last, who wasn't
given that innate ability and who had to work a lot harder
than Lance just to get into the race, let alone finish,
achieved much more. In fact, we can probably rate the
personal achievement of all the riders in the race by
reversing the order of finish. So Lance's achievement was
least impressive.

Well, coming back from cancer is impressive, but any
person born with the right genese can become an elite
athlete. They have an unfair advantage, right?

You kind of shock me Martin with your rather infantile grasp
of all this. Most Americans think the way do, probably as a
result of all the Hollywood movies. The ones like "American
Flyer" which convey that usual trite message that if you
just put your mind to it and apply yourself, you can succeed
IN ANYTHING. Well no, you can't. Because people who are
likewise training and striving hard, but who have WAY MORE
TALENT than you will succeed far beyond your wildest
imagination. Of course elites have an unfair advantage -
when they passed out parts, they got great ones!

Please review Larry's tape of Thorpe shot recently. That
look like anything you've seen around your pool lately?
Christ, I thought it was a short course pool for a moment
the way he and Keller were blasting up and down it.

The thing that makes it all fun and ties it together is that
it's always a fun human story. Whether it's Lance Armstrong
or somebody trying to set a personal record, it's the
adversity they overcome, the training, etc. But the story IS
much more compelling when it's the World's best. That's just
the way it is. Nobody wants to pay good money to watch the
average joe's, the also rans, the "pack filler" in cycling
terms. That's human nature. If I want to see the mundane,
I've got plenty of that in my life.

That's one of the reason I think his divorce hit some
people hard. Somebody wrote a post saying it was no big
deal - happens all the time. Yea, but I read about HIS
wonderful romance in his book. The cancer, the invitro
fertilization. I feel connected to the compelling story
now, so when it doesn't work out ... well, it's not just a
statistic anymore.

Eric

Mike Edey said:

Martin W. Smith said:

Mike Edey said:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:34:00 +0200, Martin W. Smith
wrote:

> [email hidden] (4precious) wrote:
>
>>Donal Fagan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email hidden]>...
>>> I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in
>>> the Tour de 'Toona many years ago. Lance didn't do
>>> too well that year and the local guys were
>>> unimpressed.
>>
>>I think the data exactly the opposite. While still a
>>teenager (maybe
>>15) he did a triathlon with Dave Scott, who by then had
>> won the Hawaiian Ironman a number of times. And
>> kept up with him on the bike! And World Champion at
>> 21, the youngest ever. I always hate to sound so
>> pro-American on these things, but I honestly don't
>> think he needs to cheat to be the best. He's a God-
>> given talent who was a World class rider at 170
>> lbs. Post chemo at 155, he's the best in the World.
>
> Well, if God gave it to him, then it isn't a great
> personal achievment.

Sure it i - just because he was born with the possibilty
doesn't mean it was handed to him on a silver plate.
Trianing is, to a great extent, simply the process of
learning to hurt more. Lance was simply born with the
ability to hurt more, and perform better under such
circumstances, then (likely) any other body on the
planet. This doesn't mean it's easy.

Like I said, then it isn't a great personal achievement.
You are saying he was given an unusual innate ability. He
didn't earn it. The guy who finished last, who wasn't
given that innate ability and who had to work a lot
harder than Lance just to get into the race, let alone
finish, achieved much more. In fact, we can probably rate
the personal achievement of all the riders in the race by
reversing the order of finish. So Lance's achievement was
least impressive.

Well, coming back from cancer is impressive, but any
person born with the right genese can become an elite
athlete. They have an unfair advantage, right?

Not quite where I was heading to... The fact that you're
borncapable of doing the work required to turn in such
performances doesn't mean you're born already having done
said work.

But everybody works. I'm sure that over the course of my
swimming career, I worked just as hard as Ian thorpe. I
don't have but a small fraction of his "god-given" talent.
If that's the difference, then my personal achievement is as
great as his if not greater, and so it is in the case of
Lance Armstrong.

Quoted message said:

Just made it possible, all the decisions, the work, the
pain, the dedication all those still had to be performed &
persevered. Genetics just offered the possibility of
working _more_.

But that's all anabolic steroids offer, so why are they
not allowed?

Quoted message said:

To put it another way here's a personal example. Not that
I'm some genetic freak or anything but I have, in the past,
been some what fitter then I am now. That being said I'd
written myself a set yesterday:

{8x50 Fr PL @ :45 4x {200fr/bk EZ

The idea was to get in some aerobic pull hence the fastish
pace on the pull - just fast enough to keep the rest
intervals short enough. The problem is I'm not as strong as
I'd like to be and had to reconsider the set 1/2 way
through after realizing despite making the pace and keeping
a reasonably low heart rate I was fatiguing too fast. In
short the set was becoming strength limited and not
aerobically limited.

Given the above let's go back to the original arguement.
The set hurt. Alot. It took a great amount of effort to get
as far as I did even if I wasn't performing the intended
kind of work. If I'd been fitter, though, I could have hurt
more, swam longer and still hit the set goal. This isn't
saying that it'd be easier if I'd been fitter, it'd been
different. More training would have made it possible to
hurt more, not easier.

Yes, I agree, but if you had been given the ability to hurt
more by God, then compared to the guy in the lane next to
you, who does the same set without God's help, your personal
achievement is less, more, the same? I say less.

(4precious) said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike Edey said:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:34:00 +0200, Martin W. Smith
wrote:

> [email hidden] (4precious) wrote:
>
>>Donal Fagan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email hidden]>...
>>> I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in
>>> the Tour de 'Toona many years ago. Lance didn't do
>>> too well that year and the local guys were
>>> unimpressed.
>>
>>I think the data exactly the opposite. While still a
>>teenager (maybe 15) he did a triathlon with Dave
>>Scott, who by then had won the Hawaiian Ironman a
>>number of times. And kept up with him on the bike! And
>>World Champion at 21, the youngest ever. I always hate
>>to sound so pro-American on these things, but I
>>honestly don't think he needs to cheat to be the best.
>>He's a God-given talent who was a World class rider at
>>170 lbs. Post chemo at 155, he's the best in the
>>World.
>
> Well, if God gave it to him, then it isn't a great
> personal achievment.

Sure it i - just because he was born with the possibilty
doesn't mean it was handed to him on a silver plate.
Trianing is, to a great extent, simply the process of
learning to hurt more. Lance was simply born with the
ability to hurt more, and perform better under such
circumstances, then (likely) any other body on the
planet. This doesn't mean it's easy.

Like I said, then it isn't a great personal achievement.
You are saying he was given an unusual innate ability. He
didn't earn it. The guy who finished last, who wasn't
given that innate ability and who had to work a lot
harder than Lance just to get into the race, let alone
finish, achieved much more. In fact, we can probably rate
the personal achievement of all the riders in the race by
reversing the order of finish. So Lance's achievement was
least impressive.

Well, coming back from cancer is impressive, but any
person born with the right genese can become an elite
athlete. They have an unfair advantage, right?

You kind of shock me Martin with your rather infantile
grasp of all this. Most Americans think the way do,
probably as a result of all the Hollywood movies. The ones
like "American Flyer" which convey that usual trite message
that if you just put your mind to it and apply yourself,
you can succeed IN ANYTHING.

But that isn't my view at all.

Quoted message said:

Well no, you can't. Because people who are likewise
training and striving hard, but who have WAY MORE TALENT
than you will succeed far beyond your wildest
imagination. Of course elites have an unfair advantage -
when they passed out parts, they got great ones!

I agree, and so the guy who does the same thing without the
talent achieves more.

Quoted message said:

Please review Larry's tape of Thorpe shot recently. That
look like anything you've seen around your pool lately?
Christ, I thought it was a short course pool for a moment
the way he and Keller were blasting up and down it.

The thing that makes it all fun and ties it together is
that it's always a fun human story. Whether it's Lance
Armstrong or somebody trying to set a personal record, it's
the adversity they overcome, the training, etc. But the
story IS much more compelling when it's the World's best.
That's just the way it is. Nobody wants to pay good money
to watch the average joe's, the also rans, the "pack
filler" in cycling terms. That's human nature. If I want to
see the mundane, I've got plenty of that in my life.

We aren't talking about any of that. We are talking about
personal achievment.

Quoted message said:

That's one of the reason I think his divorce hit some
people hard. Somebody wrote a post saying it was no big
deal - happens all the time. Yea, but I read about HIS
wonderful romance in his book. The cancer, the invitro
fertilization. I feel connected to the compelling story
now, so when it doesn't work out ... well, it's not just a
statistic anymore.

But that's *your* problem. It has nothing to do with
comparing the personal achievements of two riders, one who
has god-given talent and one who doesn't. If they do the
same amount of training and competition, then given the fact
that the one without talent will normally have less
sponsorship money to live on, then the pressure on the
lesser talented rider's marriage will be greater than it was
on Armstrong's.

His marriage and family are *his* responsibility. If he
chose bicycle glory over marriage and family, he should have
made that choice *before* he got married.

Martin, the only way what you have postulated would matter
would be if there were some objective way to measure
"talent." No one can tell where talent stops and hard work
and mental toughness takes over---so no one can measure
whether the person has "more" talent than the next person.
To denigrate what someone has done by speculating upon how
much of his efforts are due to innate talent is not a
legitimate argument. In face, it smacks of an argument for
argument's sake because there is no way to measure what you
are arguing about.

Pat in TX

I think you're all arguing about something different here,
IMHO. martin is talking about relative outcome, and larry et
al, absolute outcome...different things.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(4precious) said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mike Edey <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:34:00 +0200, Martin W. Smith
>wrote:
>
>> [email hidden] (4precious) wrote:
>>
>>>Donal Fagan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>>news:<[email hidden]>...
>>>> I first heard of Armstrong when he came to race in
>>>> the Tour de

'Toona

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> many years ago. Lance didn't do too well that year
>>>> and the local

guys

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> were unimpressed.
>>>
>>>I think the data exactly the opposite. While still a
>>>teenager

(maybe 15)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>he did a triathlon with Dave Scott, who by then had
>>>won the Hawaiian Ironman a number of times. And kept
>>>up with him on the bike! And

World

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>Champion at 21, the youngest ever. I always hate to
>>>sound so pro-American on these things, but I
>>>honestly don't think he needs to cheat to be the
>>>best. He's a God-given talent who was a World class

rider

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>at 170 lbs. Post chemo at 155, he's the best in the
>>>World.
>>
>> Well, if God gave it to him, then it isn't a great
>> personal

achievment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Sure it i - just because he was born with the
>possibilty doesn't mean

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>was handed to him on a silver plate. Trianing is, to a
>great extent, simply the process of learning to hurt
>more. Lance was simply born

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the ability to hurt more, and perform better under
>such circumstances, then (likely) any other body on
>the planet. This doesn't mean it's

easy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Like I said, then it isn't a great personal
achievement. You are saying he was given an unusual
innate ability. He didn't earn it. The guy who finished
last, who wasn't given that innate ability and who had
to work a lot harder than Lance just to get into the
race, let alone finish, achieved much more. In fact, we
can probably rate the personal achievement of all the
riders in the race by reversing the order of finish. So
Lance's achievement was least impressive.

Well, coming back from cancer is impressive, but any
person born with the right genese can become an elite
athlete. They have an unfair advantage, right?

You kind of shock me Martin with your rather infantile
grasp of all this. Most Americans think the way do,
probably as a result of all the Hollywood movies. The
ones like "American Flyer" which convey that usual trite
message that if you just put your mind to it and apply
yourself, you can succeed IN ANYTHING.

But that isn't my view at all.

Quoted message said:

Well no, you can't. Because people who are likewise
training and striving hard, but who have WAY MORE
TALENT than you will succeed far beyond your wildest
imagination. Of course elites have an unfair advantage
- when they passed out parts, they got great ones!

I agree, and so the guy who does the same thing without
the talent achieves more.

Quoted message said:

Please review Larry's tape of Thorpe shot recently. That
look like anything you've seen around your pool lately?
Christ, I thought it was a short course pool for a moment
the way he and Keller were blasting up and down it.

The thing that makes it all fun and ties it together is
that it's always a fun human story. Whether it's Lance
Armstrong or somebody trying to set a personal record,
it's the adversity they overcome, the training, etc. But
the story IS much more compelling when it's the World's
best. That's just the way it is. Nobody wants to pay
good money to watch the average joe's, the also rans,
the "pack filler" in cycling terms. That's human nature.
If I want to see the mundane, I've got plenty of that in
my life.

We aren't talking about any of that. We are talking about
personal achievment.

Quoted message said:

That's one of the reason I think his divorce hit some
people hard. Somebody wrote a post saying it was no big
deal - happens all the time. Yea, but I read about HIS
wonderful romance in his book. The cancer, the invitro
fertilization. I feel connected to the compelling story
now, so when it doesn't work out ... well, it's not just
a statistic anymore.

But that's *your* problem. It has nothing to do with
comparing the personal achievements of two riders, one who
has god-given talent and one who doesn't. If they do the
same amount of training and competition, then given the
fact that the one without talent will normally have less
sponsorship money to live on, then the pressure on the
lesser talented rider's marriage will be greater than it
was on Armstrong's.

His marriage and family are *his* responsibility. If he
chose bicycle glory over marriage and family, he should
have made that choice *before* he got married.

Pat said:

Martin, the only way what you have postulated would matter
would be if there were some objective way to measure
"talent." No one can tell where talent stops and hard work
and mental toughness takes over---so no one can measure
whether the person has "more" talent than the next person.
To denigrate what someone has done by speculating upon how
much of his efforts are due to innate talent is not a
legitimate argument. In face, it smacks of an argument for
argument's sake because there is no way to measure what you
are arguing about.

I didn't denigrate anyone. I said, If you are going to give
God credit for Lance Armstrong's accomplishments, then Lance
Armstrong's accomplisments are diminished. There are
differences in genetics. These can be minimized by allowing
the use of drugs. If genetics plays an important role in
Lance Armstrong's accomplishments, then if a second rider
duplicates those accomplishments by using drugs, and
assuming they both put in similar years of training and
sacrifice to get to the top, then the values of their equal
accomplishments are equal. Drugs and God cancel each other
out, and we are left with two human beings.

Malgorzata Szeszo NOSPAM said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

He didn't argue that they helped him. He just said it was
cheating for some reason other than it is against the
rules, but he didn't give an argument for why drug use
would be cheating even if it weren't against the rules.

I gave the reason why doping is cheating :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>It's followed by results that are unreachable for
>>>>gifted, hard-working, healthy, clean athlete.

Two points:

1. Is there any proof that the results achieved by
athletes using drugs are not achievable by athletes not
using drugs? So far, Ian Thorpe is the fastest man ever
in the 400 free.

2. If your "argument" is accepted, then the results of
gifted, hard-working, healthy, clean athletes, are not
achievable by non-gifted, hard-working, healthy, clean
athletes, so gifted athletes are cheating, because if
the rules aren't the sole reason drug use is cheating,
then rules aren't the sole reason genetic advantage is
not cheating.

Quoted message said:

It's like on entrance exam. I would never agree that
someone who could not pass exam without cheating have right
to cheat -because for him it's the only way to be on the
top of the list and to be admitted.

That's irrelevant because it assumes there is cheating. Drug
use is cheating because it is against the rules. It used to
be cheating if athletes accepted money for competing. Jim
thorpe had to give back his gold medals because he accepted
money for playing baseball. Then they changed the rules, and
accepting payment for racing was no longer cheating.

Quoted message said:

I would never accept his results - for example maximal
number of points which is unreachable even for gifted and
predisposed people.. Fortunately amazing results helped_ to
reveal cheating. But now_ cheaters find out that it is
better not to disturb Gaussian distribution. It still
unfair - even if doping allows you to improve only a
little. It's still skiping the distance you do not deserve.

No one desrves a genetic advantage either. Therefore, Ian
Thorpe is a cheater?

You still haven't made a case.

David HARRISON said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: [email hidden] (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
:>David HARRISON <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>>There is a very real difference between another
:>>competitor saying "I'd also win 5 TDF if I had his
:>>thighs" and him saying, "I'd also win 5 TDF if I took
:>>the same course of drugs as him". One is implying great
:>>praise and admiration by in effect saying you'd have to
:>>be Lance in order to be as good as Lance. The other is
:>>simply stating a fact and requires no assumption of
:>>"Lancehood" in order to be valid.
:>
:>And the true statement would be something like: I'd win
:>the Tour if I spent my entire year focused on this race
:>and prerode the course. His training methods are much
:>more sound than some of his big competitors, and it
:>doesn't hurt that he has a great team along side.
:>
:>And this is where genetics no longer is enough. That only
:>sets the potential.
: And it is where drugs are no longer enough. That only
: sets the potential.

The point is that no one complains about the training
techniques because, theoretically, anyone can train the
same way if they wish to. If competitor X was disallowed
from following the same training regime as Lance then
those training techniques would, I argue, be viewed as
cheating also.

Then economic advantage, which does restrict access to
training methods and facilities, is cheating.

Quoted message said:

I will repeat myself for the third time. "God-
given/genetic" advantages are the only allowed areas of "non-
level playing field" by *definition*. Note, I'm abstracting
"God-given/genetic" advantages here simply to phrase my
conclusion to keep it more in line with your
reasoning.We've already established that we simply have a
difference of opinion in this regard.

I disagree for the third time. It may be that what you claim
is the effective result, but the general population doesn't
see it that way. they see that ruling out everything but god-
given/genetic advantages *is* a level playing field, not an
exception.

Quoted message said:

I also disagree with your opinion that most people feel
anyone *can* get to the olympics if they try hard enough.
Most NBA fans wouldn't feel they could sub for Shaq if they
really, really, really tried hard. Ever.

But there are other positions on the team. Subbing for
Shaq is not a valid example. Being on the team is a
valid example.

Quoted message said:

No one desrves a genetic advantage either.

Genetic advantage is not cheating. In fact 'this advantage'
is less than you think. You may have great genetic advantage
but don't have possibility to start training.

Gosia
---------
PL

Malgorzata Szeszo NOSPAM said:

Quoted message said:

No one desrves a genetic advantage either.

Genetic advantage is not cheating.

Because you say so? Why isn't it cheating? A person with
genetic advantage certainly didn't earn it. So earning an
advantage can't be the difference. Therefore not earning the
advantage given by drugs cannot be the reason drug use is
cheating. I think the only reason left for saying that drug
use is cheating is that it is against the rules.

Quoted message said:

In fact 'this advantage' is less than you think.

How many swimmers make it to the Olympics who do not have a
genetic advantage? I have seen very few shotputters
competing in elite swimming.

Quoted message said:

You may have great genetic advantage but don't have
possibility to start training.

I don't see the relevance.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Drugs and God cancel each other out, and we are left with
two

Quoted message said:

human beings.

Not if the "god gifted" athletes take them as well. then the
improvement is standardised.

diablo said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Drugs and God cancel each other out, and we are left with
two

Quoted message said:

human beings.

Not if the "god gifted" athletes take them as well. then
the improvement is standardised.

I disagree. We have the example of fins, which is
metaphorically comparable. When I where fins, I can train
with elite swimmers. Well, I can't now, but ten years ago
when I was swimming 35k per week I could. I noticed that
when the fast swimmers used fins, they didn't go much faster
than they did without them.

As I understand it, the drugs used during the training
phase, enable the swimmer to work harder, longer, and
recover more quickly for the next day's sessions.
Genetically gifted swimmers already have these qualities, so
drugs would do less for them.

If that is reasonable, then a genetically gifted swimmer
could gain a little taking drugs, but all the users,
genetically gifted or not, would approach the same limit of
training capacity.