"J Jones" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:"J Jones" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message new-
s:[email hidden]-
et...
>
> "J Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "]news:[email hidden]...
> > From and interview on Eurosport.com:
> >
> >
>
eurosport.comsport LOpen ↗
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> >
> > Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> > continually swirling
around
> > cycling, some have made the connection between
> > Armstrong and the
> medications
> > he was allowed to take - and may currently still
> > be taking -
because
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:of
Quoted message said:> his
> > cancer.
> >
> > Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's
> > what I have to
say
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:to
Quoted message said:> that
> > bunch of [censored]: I wish you just one thing: That
> > you have the
same
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> > sickness. That you have one foot in the grave.
> > Then you'll see how
much
Quoted message said:> > you'll want to live. How much you'll want to do
> > what you love and
do
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:it
Quoted message said:to
> > it's maximum
> >
>
> Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> question.
Hinault's obvious answer is for the "LA is doping"
crowd to get over
it.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Hinault is saying that Lance was near death and he
came back from that experience with a newfound
appreciation for life and what he could accomplish
with his life - both on and off the bike. LA's near-
death experience is what is driving his performance,
not drugs.
Of course, he could be wrong....
He *could* be wrong? Actually, he is. There is no logic
in what Hinault says. A near-death experience does not
make you go faster.
Actually, in Lance's case, it did make him better/faster
because of the physical changes his body underwent - i.e.,
lighter up top. This, along with the Carmicheal-based
training principles improved his power-to-weight ratio to
make him faster in the mountains and TTs. Of course, the
mental toughness that Lance developed through surviving
cancer helped an incalculable amount too - i.e., suffering
for your life w/cancer most
surely
Quoted message said:puts suffering on a bike in perspective, a perspective
that no other competitor in the peloton can appreciate.
Well, as Peter Winnen said, Armstrong has a lot of doctor's
notes, so yes, from that viewpoint you can shoot some cancer
survivorship into your arm.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:'Surviving cancer' and 'using blood doping' are not
interchangable. I'm sure that Armstrong has a strong
character and the way he was able to cope with
his
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:illness is testimony to that. But I've yet to see anyone
dispute that.
But
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:that kind of drive is different from the advantage
doping gives. Or do
we
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:assume that Armstrong shoots syringes full of cancer
survivorship into
his
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:arm?
If anything is in the way of solving the doping problem,
it is the
pathetic
Quoted message said:hero-attitude that surrounds sportsmen. Some can do
nothing wrong, while others are cheaters to begin with.
Armstrong has played the hero card
too
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:much, I think, and it is backfiring towards him.
I have a lot of respect for Armstrong's career, and
especially for the
way
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:he stood up to his illness. I wouldn't call it
inspiring, because I'm
more
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:inspired by a very different sort of person, but it is
easy to see why
he
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:inspires others.
Quoted message said:But the kind of moral blackmail that his cancer history
is used for is sickening, and I've had enough of it
(something that should
have
Quoted message said:been said in 2000 or 1999).
Moral blackmail? His cancer story is now part of who he is
- no one can change that. Aside from the inspiration he
provides millions of sick individuals, his charitable
foundations have raised extraordinary amounts
of
Quoted message said:money to help the cause. But alas, the sick and the
charitable are being duped by LA. What a twisted viewpoint
you have.
My problem is not with the story itself, and I don't
understand why you fail to see the respect I have for
Armstrongs history. What words must I put down to convince
you of the utter devotion I feel toward this saintly person
who has helped so many persons in need? Oh my, I am being
accused of having a twisted viewpoint, without ever
producing any piece of text that actually contains such a
viewpoint.
What I object to is how that story is used to turn any
argument that might say something negative about Armstrong
into disrespect for his struggle against cancer. That cannot
be right. If Hinault calls Walsh an [censored] because he
criticizes someone who struggled with cancer, then Hinault
is exerting emotional pressure without giving rational
arguments. That is not a twisted viewpoint, Mr. Jones, and I
kindly ask to take back such an insulting qualification.
I do not know of a single person who is eager to believe Mr.
Walsh. But if you take a step back and look at how Armstrong
has been defended, then I think Walsh is comfortably
awaiting the trials and the eventual verdict of history.
Scott Sunderland wrote something like: "I haven't read the
book, but I'm sure it's [censored]." Great debating skills, Scott.
Why would Armstrong need enemies when he has such friends?
Hinault's words are in exactly the same league - not giving
us a clue about whether Walsh (or more specifically: Emma
O'Reilly) is right or not. All we learn is who is on whose
side, which is extremely tiring for anyone trying to deduce
the facts.
But hurray, Hinault verbally punches Walsh. Let's see if
Verbruggen jumps into the fray. What will he call Walsh?
Verbruggen uses correct language, but I'm sure he'll
respectfully produce a stream of words good for at least
three messages on usenet. Never mind the fact that he won't
be saying anything at all, which is for the best anyway.
After all, this whole 'L.A. Confidential' thing is going to
trail off into obscurity and prolonged court cases and leave
some undecisive conclusion after Armstrong has retired, and
that might be the best for all, right?
Jonathan.
