Lance Armstrong to race again

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:02:23 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]

[/quote]. But the article does injustice to the power of positive thought. Will power alone is not going to cure cancer but a positive attitude goes a very long way towards stacking the odds more in your favour than does submission, the facts of the benefits of biochemical processes that stem from a fighting attitude are well founded.

[/quote]

Martin the stuff that I've read says exactly the opposite - positive thinking does not influence the outcome at all. How a person chooses to meet their end - be it "rage against the dying of the light" or "always look on the bright side of life" is their choice but it does not affect their likelihood of surviving dread disease.

As I see it - and this gels with other things I have read - the trouble with the cult of the power of positive thinking is that when you take the concept to its logical conclusion the idea that your willpower can help to "beat cancer" implies that those that don't beat cancer are lacking in willpower and somehow deserve to die from it. Being strong in the face of a dreadful illness may help your relatives to cope, it may help to preserve your self image and dignity but it does not help your survival and sometimes people in these situations need NOT to be strong - sometimes they need to rage and weep and be comforted and told it is ok to feel that way.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

J G Wray — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:55:11 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Not quite sure what this article is trying to prove[/quote]

That Armstrong is a charlatan, n'est-ce pas?

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] Armstrong is lucky in that testicular cancer, albeit very advanced in his case is, is one of the few cancers which respond well to chemotherapy and are literally curable not just put into long-term remission[/quote]

We know and that treatment's what cured him. Sometimes, if you're really lucky you don't even need chemo.

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Maybe his will power could have been his undoing as much as his saviour as it was his will power and stubbornness that allowed him to continue to compete and perhaps ignore the symptoms of disseminated cancer including large secondaries in his lungs and brain until it was almost too late.[/quote]

Who says - the sainted Lance perhaps? Are you sure there was no profound arrogance or venality attached to this, as well as performance enhancing drugs/therapy

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Whatever his subsequent misdeeds, his recovery and work for cancer has given millions hope and support.[/quote]?

Millions? Really? How do these "millions" feel now their Messiah is tainted?

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] To belittle that achievement as well as his sporting achievements is a great mis-service, even if someone with terminal cancer is given a few weeks of extra quality life through hope it is worth it.[/quote]

Hope may spring eternal, but medical treatment gives life in these circumstances and on this subject whither the effect of the established nursing and counselling services and, oh yes, family support compared with Lance for these unfortunates?

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] There are a few around who are driven so much by materalism, grudges and self importance that they could benefit from a similar thought process. [/quote]

Quis?

JGW

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:05:40 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]

[/quote] Not quite sure what this article is trying to prove. Armstrong is lucky in that testicular cancer, albeit very advanced in his case is, is one of the few cancers which respond well to chemotherapy and are literally curable not just put into long-term remission. Breast cancer sadly is the opposite. Maybe his will power could have been his undoing as much as his saviour as it was his will power and stubbornness that allowed him to continue to compete and perhaps ignore the symptoms of disseminated cancer including large secondaries in his lungs and brain until it was almost too late. But the article does injustice to the power of positive thought. Will power alone is not going to cure cancer but a positive attitude goes a very long way towards stacking the odds more in your favour than does submission, the facts of the benefits of biochemical processes that stem from a fighting attitude are well founded. Whatever his subsequent misdeeds, his recovery and work for cancer has given millions hope and support. To belittle that achievement as well as his sporting achievements is a great mis-service, even if someone with terminal cancer is given a few weeks of extra quality life through hope it is worth it. And for me, having read 'Is not about the bike' changed my attitude to life at a time I was feeling down and sorry for myself. I realised I didn't need a near-death experience to make me appreciate that just being alive and living to see the new day was all that mattered and helped me put my problems in perspective and I still have occasions I have to remind myself of this fact. There are a few around who are driven so much by materalism, grudges and self importance that they could benefit from a similar thought process.

I think over again my small adventures,

my fears, those small ones that seemed so big,

All the vital things I had to get and reach.

And yet there is only one great thing: to live to see the

day that dawns, and the light that fills the world.

(from a traditional Inuit poem)

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:59:16 GMT

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

J G Wray — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:02:13 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I would like to think Lance was innocent as much as anyone but the weight of circumstantial evidence and confessions is very convincing. [/quote]

From today's Top People's Newspaper

Simon Barnes

".. Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Who is the greatest charlatan in sport?

It is a question that takes on new and urgent relevance with the latest revelations about Lance Armstrong. By charlatan, I mean hypocrite, phony, faker and humbug—a person who lays claim to conspicuous virtue with no intention at all of trying to attain it.

I have restricted the list to athletes because if I were to bring in coaches and administrators, the poor old athletes would never get a look-in. And I am keeping to the athletes of the past quarter-century, which means that we are missing out on such treats as the shamateurism of W. G. Grace and the baseball players from the Black Sox scandal.

So here it is: a tentative top ten of sport’s greatest charlatans of recent times, people who showed themselves as one thing, but were quite another.

10 Tony Adams

Adams presented himself as JL v/ good ol’ reliable Tony — a solid citizen who was an indispensable footballer for club and country; a centre half and leader whose nature was as a rock. But he wasn’t solid at all, he was liquid — a binge drinker of horrendous capacity who ended up in jail after crashing a car when more or less incapable of walking. He has, of course, repented, reformed and become a powerful force against addiction, and against the hypocrisy and concealment that addiction demands.

9 John Terry

There’s always a place on a list such as this for the leader and legend, below, the diamond geezer whose cult following agree that it’s never Terry’s fault. This is the Dad of the Year who parked his car in a disabled parking slot—not an attractive crime to think of during the Paralympics — and the natural leader who had to be sacked as England football captain not once but twice; a captain whose behaviour has seen off two of his own team-mates. These are not great crimes, it’s true. They are all on a petty scale, as befits the man.

8 Justin Gatlin

There was an awful moment when it seemed that Gatlin would win the 100 metres at the Olympic Games a few brief weeks ago —that would have soured the entire Games. But Usain Bolt did his stuff, and Gatlin, who failed drugs tests on two occasions, was left trailing. There are drugs cheats who come clean afterwards and repent, and there are those who tell you that it wasn’t them, that it was to do with a cream rubbed into his lovely body by an erring masseur. Gatlin is in the second group.

7 Paul Gascoigne

At what point do you stop feeling sorry for a drinker and wife-beater? It’s hard to say because Gazza has always been a victim in many ways, a man whose unstable temperament was expressed in his extraordinary gifts on the football field as well as his impossible behaviour off it. Perhaps he was never a conscious and deliberate hypocrite, like the others on this list, but there was always a terrible difference between his sunny public performance and the darkness of his private life.

6 Salman Butt

What a good cricket captain, we all thought, the utterly dependable man that Pakistan need. He impressed us all and was then caught not only spot-fixing a match but corrupting Mohammad Amir, the marvellous young cricketer, to do so.Behind the diplomatic, wise and admirable leader was a man of casual and cynical corruption. As with so many here, it was the appearance of virtue that gave the actual crime a peculiar vividness.

5 Lester Piggott

Piggott rode the Queen’s horses and the horses of the good and the great. He was the greatest jockey of them all - nine wins in the Derby and all that. All Lester stories show a mean and ungenerous spirit behind the laconic wit, but no one suspected the depth of his meanness. Money is great stuff to have in the supermarket, but Piggott’s pathological inability to let any of it go led to his tax-dodging and imprisonment. No one plays tax with a light heart, but either you’re prepared to pay for your ride or you’re not.

4 Ben Johnson

Johnson’s appearance on a list such as this is more or less compulsory. It was the contrast between the glorious speed in his race in the 100 metres at the Seoul Olympic Games of 1988 and the revelation that he had done so on drugs that shattered the sporting world. There was no empty piety about Johnson — he was man whose . entire being seemed to be speed — but his was a story of necessary concealment followed by explosive revelation.

3 Tonya Harding

Harding was an American skater and Nancy Kerrigan was her great rival. Kerrigan was assaulted on January 6,1994, after Jeff Gillooly, Harding’s ex-husband, and Shawn Eckhardt, her bodyguard, hired Shane Stant to break Kerrigan’s right leg— an attack intended to put her out of competition. After complex plea-bargaining, Harding pleaded guilty to a charge of hindering the prosecution of the suspects. Harding still maintains her innocence and had an angel tattooed on her back to demonstrate this.

2 Hansie Cronje

He so nearly makes it to No 1. It was the gloriously blatant hypocrisy of his life that is so compelling here. Cronje wore a bracelet with the letters WWJD, asking him constantly, “What Would Jesus Do?” Answer: probably not throw a cricket match for a few quid and a leather jacket. He said subsequently that he suffered from “an unfortunate love of money” and painted himself as an addict. Cronje had taken elaborate pains to set himself up as a good man: one of the great sporting ambassadors of post-apartheid South Africa, ushering in a new era of sport with a team of all the races and doing so with class, humour and eloquence. He had the respect of the world, but he loved money more. Or perhaps it was hoodwinking the world that was so attractive. He was killed in a plane crash in 2002. In certain areas of South African society, he remains a cult figure of unimpeachable virtue—the charlatan surviving his own unveiling.

1 Lance Armstrong

In the end the glory, and the title has to go to Lance. Cronje was an old-fashioned religious hypocrite, a classic Tartuffe. Armstrong was a hypocrite of the 21st century, a hypocrite of the new secular faith that states that with a positive attitude you can do anything. You can “beat” cancer, as if the disease were a test not of body but of personal mettle; you can win the Tour de France seven times; and you can make the French eat merde. Thousands bought into it and supported his cancer charity by wearing the yellow rubber band with LIVESTRONG on it. The bracelet appealed to the vanity of its wearers.

It said that I, too, am a person with strong values, that I, too, am a person of this strong secular faith in the power of personality. But Armstrong knew that strength of mind wasn’t enough. As the revelations tell us uncompromisingly, he also needed the strength of drugs. Armstrong took the great traditions of sporting hypocrisy and brought them bang up to date..."

'nuff said really

JGW

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Simon Neuhoff — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:46:47 GMT

As exciting as the race has been I am struggling to feel enthusiastic about a convicted doper narrowly beating another convicted doper. On the positive side it was clear that Bertie was shattered by the end and very nearly got reeled in - so maybe he isn't doped to the gills?

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:52:37 GMT

I don't know why red star man hit my last post unless someone just hates me so much now they're going to red star my every word but am I bovered?. But as a link, I wondered what the enthusiasts think about Alberto Contador with his stunning performance on stage 17 of la Vuelta. Bertie is still the most exciting and talented rider out there but how can we believe his performances after his clenbuterol ban and links with Operation Puerto?

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:20:43 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"] He was much bigger than most of the other cyclists [/quote] Probably all that clenbuterol in the tainted Spanish beef I expect.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Richard Fox — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:46:38 GMT

Good synopsis - yes I agree - enough is enough!

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Ian Mostyn — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:46:09 GMT

Miguel Indurain seems to be reasonably untainted by drugs / doping allegations. He did fail a test for salbutamol once in France but salbutamol was legal everywhere else in the world at the time so they let him off. He was much bigger than most of the other cyclists and was a "power" rider rather than LA's high cadence style.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:42:07 GMT

[quote user="Richard Fox"]

Oh dear - Anyway if Lance is stripped f his wins by the USDA - which strictly is can't do then it becomes a victim of its self - with no concrete evidence then its down to speculation - they then become a law unto them selves which is just short of a extremist group no?

I don't know what happened but given the number of drug tests he has had in recent years I find it hard to believe - good luck to him and hist ventures I say :) And its time to move on and its time the USDA stopped dragging up mud and dirtying the sport even more!

[/quote] USADA cannot directly strip His Lanceness of his TdF titles only Amoury Sport Organisation (ASO) the organiser of the Tour can do that but by virtue of its affiliation to WADA which is in turn affiliated to the UCI, the rules of which ASO has to abide by, in practice it can issue the order for ASO to do so! UCI can appeal but is unlikely to as it may shake a few more skeletons out of the cupboard which it would rather not have revealed. But the 'never failed a test' argument doesn't work - neither did David Millar or a dozen more who have confessed. I would like to think Lance was innocent as much as anyone but the weight of circumstantial evidence and confessions is very convincing. As I've said before, where do you stop? - Evans, Wiggins and possibly Greg Lemond are likely the only clean winners in history - all the way back to Maurice Garin!

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Richard Fox — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:49:12 GMT

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:04:48 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]Arlo, I love vetsurgeon.org and would totally, like, like you on FB but...aren't red stars and yellow stars a wee bit for kids?[/quote]

Thanks Virginia!

Are the stars for kids? Well, lots of adults are using them, so I guess not entirely

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]aren't red stars and yellow stars a wee bit for kids?[/quote] Doesn't that sum it up Virginia a bit like smilies also really?

[/quote]

Martin, completely disagree with you about smilies. Smilies are an essential tool to clarify meaning.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Simon Neuhoff — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:05:51 GMT

[quote user="Moira Hamilton"]

Simon, thanks for the synopsis, I find it hard to keep up with exactly what's going on since sources often contraindicate each other!

I also am a Lance fan and find it reassuring that he's not being victimised, and I know that his resources far ouway everyone elses by a LONG way! It is a shame that it is tainting the Livestrong trust as well as cycling, even this year it wasn't an entirely clean tour but at least it was the best in a long while, I wish they would just all admit if they did cheat, and those that want to take the risks of doping could have a seperate race! Aaaagh.

But thanks for all the info anyway,

Moira

[/quote]

Moira I also struggle with the compromise with loving the sport and hating the doping. I believe though that things ARE a lot better now - not 100% clean but I think clean cyclists can now be competitive and I am also allowing myself to believe that Wiggins, Froome, Evans are clean. I REALLY hope I don't get proved wrong!

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Moira Hamilton — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:23:48 GMT

Simon, thanks for the synopsis, I find it hard to keep up with exactly what's going on since sources often contraindicate each other!

But thanks for all the info anyway,

Moira

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:21:39 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]aren't red stars and yellow stars a wee bit for kids?[/quote] Doesn't that sum it up Virginia a bit like smilies also really?

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Virginia Campbell — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:26:44 GMT

[quote user="Tim Cheyne"]I don't understand the star system, perhaps because I neither use it nor take notice of it,[/quote]

Arlo, I love vetsurgeon.org and would totally, like, like you on FB but...aren't red stars and yellow stars a wee bit for kids?

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:59:40 GMT

Moira I have been a Tour fan for years and was a Lance fan too - so I find it unpleasant too. However I think it is important to get to the bottom of it so that the sport can move on.

There are all sorts of rumours of retests being done on old samples but for now to focus on what has been reasonably well established:

There is no "witchhunt" being conducted. Lance has not been targetted in isolation. The USADA have sanctioned other riders too -he is simply the most high profile and has fought it more spectacularly due to the vast resources at his disposal.

He never tested positive for EPO - but for much of his career there was no test. Even when one became available it was easy to beat. Hamilton, Basso, Ullrich, David Millar et al never tested positive either and they have all either been caught in other ways or admitted guilt.

Lance actually DID test positive for corticosteroids. He then presented a back dated doctor's letter to the effect that it was due to a steroid ointment which the UCI bizarrely accepted.

His ex wife is merely the latest of the witnesses to be revealed - there are apparently a dozen now who can atest to what was going on ranging from team mates, former friends and mechanics.

Sadly even the cancer reaeach bit is tainted - this is a very long winded artcile but is does look into the relatonship between Armstrong and his charity: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:48:13 GMT

PS would it help for those who were offended by the hanging man to know that he wasn't actually dead but he was a hard-man trying to prove how tough he is by surviving hanging?

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Anthony Todd — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:42:24 GMT

[quote user="Rajat"]Can I have wine/whiskey instead or are you sitting on a warehouse of brandy you need to get rid of?[/quote]

Gift horse and oral exam comes to mind but then you're a small animal man I think....

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:31:12 GMT

[quote user="Tim Cheyne"]I don't understand the star system, perhaps because I neither use it nor take notice of it, and I find it confusing when posters talk of receiving red stars but I cannot see them (do they disappear?).[/quote]

Anyone can award any post up to five stars. The system then displays the average of all votes cast. So, of someone comes and gives one star, and two minutes later someone else comes and gives five, the system will display 3 (I think it rounds up). So they don't disappear as such, the number of stars displayed changes depending on how many people have voted, and how they voted.

[quote user="Tim Cheyne"]Anyway, I have a vague recollection that you could see who awarded stars by running your cursor over them; is that so, Arlo?[/quote]

No, you can see HOW MANY people voted by mousing over once you have cast your vote. You cannot see who has voted.

The system is supposed to be pretty democratic, in that if some bloody idiot comes and awards one star for spurious reasons, everyone else will soon correct it. That does more or less happen, but really more people need to vote quicker, without commenting on the stars that have already been awarded. That way, we would take away the satisfaction that someone gets from awarding one star.

If that doesn't work, I'd be tempted to turn the star system off.

And perhaps in the next software update, we need to see whether we can make the star system more accountable.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Tim Cheyne — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 05:53:59 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I reckon star awarders should identify themselves,[/quote]

I don't understand the star system, perhaps because I neither use it nor take notice of it, and I find it confusing when posters talk of receiving red stars but I cannot see them (do they disappear?). Anyway, I have a vague recollection that you could see who awarded stars by running your cursor over them; is that so, Arlo?

Tim.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Moira Hamilton — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:19:27 GMT

Boringly back to the original thread, I think Lance is being victimised for being successful. Going back to checking tested prior to racing professionally is a joke in my opinion, it's already been thrown out of the courts once. Why do we feel compelled to slate those who are exceptional, he's the most tested athlete in history! As for an ex testifying, could that be a case of a woman scorned...... People like Richard Branson, Bill Gates, etc will always sadly gain powerful and vindictive enemies. Personally as a keen armchair cycling fan, especially the Tour de France I hope he does compete and get even more money for cancer research.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:43:14 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"][quote user="Anthony Todd"]

I reckon star awarders should identify themselves, so I can sent them a case of brandy if they give me five gold and an uncomfortable bike seat if it's red.

[/quote]5 stars from me too, pm me for delivery address

[/quote]

Red star from me - do you any idea how much a properly uncomfortable saddle costs? Besides I don't like brandy - whiskey man myself.

Re: Lance Armstrong to race again

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:14:51 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

I reckon star awarders should identify themselves, so I can sent them a case of brandy if they give me five gold and an uncomfortable bike seat if it's red.

[/quote]5 stars from me too, pm me for delivery address