SIGN IN or REGISTER
USERNAME or EMAIL
PASSWORD

FORGOT YOUR USERNAME OR PASSWORD?

Jump to content


Photo

Lance Armstrong


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
31 replies to this topic

#1 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,144 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:09 PM

Arguably, the biggest cheater of all time.

Thoughts?

#2 alicenchains

alicenchains

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:26 PM

Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwazzeneger (sp?) had a pretty decent run as well.

#3 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,662 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:46 PM

Arguably, the biggest cheater of all time.

Thoughts?

Are you a cheater if all your competitors were cheating in the same way?

#4 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,144 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:27 PM

Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwazzeneger (sp?) had a pretty decent run as well.

Fair comparison but Tiger and Arnold didn't cheat to get to the top. They were at the top and then they cheated morally. Arnold didn't sleep with his maid to become a Hollywood superstar. Tiger didn't cheat on his wife to win major golf tournaments.

Lance Armstrong, on the other hand, cheated to get to the top in the first place... and then continues to lie about it. Lance Armstrong is an absolute nobody.


Are you a cheater if all your competitors were cheating in the same way?

Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right.

#5 DL44

DL44

    DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK.....

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,832 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:24 PM

^ I think he's referring to Schwazzeneger's steroid abuse during his prime. Again, one those - well everyone was doing it arguments... and also the culture of that sport was waaaay different.

I wouldn't say Armstrong was the biggest cheater... just the best cheater. How the hell did he pass all those tests over his career?? its mind boggling to me.

Him, like Schwazzeneger were pretty much genetic freaks in their sports, but took liberties with the rules and they cemented themselves as all-time greats.. Like Barry Bonds, i'm sure they all would have dominated their sports just the same without the PEDs... but they failed to resist.

When the most recent indictments occurred, i was like 'i can't believe the lengths they are going through to ruin an American hero... in the US!' Fascinating actually.

But I'm so numb on the issue with Lance now. I was sick of Armstrong long before the scandals.. don't really care too much now... so i pretty much look at him the same way as i did a few months ago... with mostly indifference.

I feel bad for the hero side of him, the brand of Lance Armstrong... He was going to be one those speakers on the circuit that would of been hauling 6 figures per engagement... and you know most of it woulda gone to Livestrong.. that's the only sad part...
the rest of it... ah well.

#6 jjgallow

jjgallow

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,451 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:26 PM

Are you a cheater if all your competitors were cheating in the same way?


Yes, but then it says as much about the sport as the individual. Not good for anybody.

#7 happycat

happycat

    Meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,476 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:55 AM

Ben Johnson..... he lost us our gold.

#8 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,662 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:21 AM

I really think that the paranoia regarding performance enhancing drugs is WAY overblown. If the issue wasn't so taboo, then people could speak about it openly and the problem would be much less pronounced then it is now. Instead, what we have done is make it so people have to act behind the scenes to go about using them. And don't kid yourself, performance enhancing drug use hasn't been reduced in sport, athletes and technology have just made it harder to detect.

#9 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,827 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:57 PM

Are you a cheater if all your competitors were cheating in the same way?


Are you a speeder if everyone else speeds through a play gound zone too?

#10 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,662 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:46 PM

Are you a speeder if everyone else speeds through a play gound zone too?

Not even close to analagous situations.

The reason you're a speeder in your situation is because when you speed you're creating negative externalities. But, in a competition that is based on relative performance, where everyone is also "cheating," you arguably are not creating any negative externalities.

There is an argument to be made that this mentality creates a race to the bottom, which is in a sense an externality since you are applying pressures onto your competitors. However, the causal relationship between your actions when you cheat in a competition is much more tenuous than the causal relationship between a speeder and the negative externalities (i.e., danger of hitting a child) of said speeder's actions.

#11 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,827 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:44 PM

Not even close to analagous situations.

The reason you're a speeder in your situation is because when you speed you're creating negative externalities. But, in a competition that is based on relative performance, where everyone is also "cheating," you arguably are not creating any negative externalities.

There is an argument to be made that this mentality creates a race to the bottom, which is in a sense an externality since you are applying pressures onto your competitors. However, the causal relationship between your actions when you cheat in a competition is much more tenuous than the causal relationship between a speeder and the negative externalities (i.e., danger of hitting a child) of said speeder's actions.


By your own original description "cheater" you already answered your own question. They are cheating just like a speeder is speeding. Just because they all might be cheating does not minimize the cheater to a non-cheater.

Same deal with drinking and driving or speeding. If does not become okay or you don't suddenly become sober because everyone seems to be doing it.

Your original statement also assume everyone else is cheating. As soon as 1 contestant is competing without cheating that eliminates your thinking that it is okay because everyone is cheating and on the same playing field.

Show me proof that "absolutely everyone" always use the performance enhancing drugs and there is never ever anyone who competes clean(without them) and I might reconsider your points.

#12 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,662 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:16 PM

By your own original description "cheater" you already answered your own question. They are cheating just like a speeder is speeding. Just because they all might be cheating does not minimize the cheater to a non-cheater.

Same deal with drinking and driving or speeding. If does not become okay or you don't suddenly become sober because everyone seems to be doing it.

Your original statement also assume everyone else is cheating. As soon as 1 contestant is competing without cheating that eliminates your thinking that it is okay because everyone is cheating and on the same playing field.

Show me proof that "absolutely everyone" always use the performance enhancing drugs and there is never ever anyone who competes clean(without them) and I might reconsider your points.

a ) I never defined "cheating";
b ) You ignored my argument and just restated your premise; and
c ) Drug use was so prolific (and remains so) in that period that perhaps we should just wipe out everyone who won a title in the 90s and early 2000s.

#13 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,827 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

a ) I never defined "cheating";
b ) You ignored my argument and just restated your premise; and
c ) Drug use was so prolific (and remains so) in that period that perhaps we should just wipe out everyone who won a title in the 90s and early 2000s.


The topic of the thread is Lance Armstrong.
He has already been found guilty of "cheating" and punished so:

1. You don't have to define cheating in this case. The governing body that oversees that sport did that for you. They have the testing in place and the governing laws in place to address that situation. The fact the testing standards in the past may have been inadequate does not make the doping okay now does it? Their subsequent stripping him of all his titles confirms the rules they have in place.

2. You don't have an argument just an unethical viewpoint. I am not ignoring your argument at all. Just because everyone else seems to be doing it does not make it valid point. Kudos to Nike they obviously have some ethics and want to show somewhat that making money off of cheating is not okay with them either.

3. What you think is okay is irrelevant here. The governing body can only address proven cases not yours or someones elses meanderings on how prevalent doping in the sport might be. Again I doubt absolutely everyone in the sport was and is doping. Until you can prove that everyone was and is doping then you have no point. Until the governing body changes the rules to accommodate doping then there is no ethical stand in your points.

When it comes to doping in any sport the people who govern the sport have to take a zero tolerance to it. The integrity of the sport demands it. It does not matter what your ethics are or what your viewpoint is.

#14 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,662 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:26 PM

The topic of the thread is Lance Armstrong.
He has already been found guilty of "cheating" and punished so:

1. You don't have to define cheating in this case. The governing body that oversees that sport did that for you. They have the testing in place and the governing laws in place to address that situation. The fact the testing standards in the past may have been inadequate does not make the doping okay now does it? Their subsequent stripping him of all his titles confirms the rules they have in place.


Just because a governing body has deemed doping to be an offence under their rules doesn't make everyone who breaks those rules a "cheater." The term "cheater" is a subjective term that MUST be defined before you can have a coherent discussion about whether someone is a cheater. If you want to define "cheater" as someone who breaks the rules, that's fine. If you want to define "cheater" as someone who does something to gain an unfair advantage over his competition, again that's fine. But the two are not the same thing, yet both are equally valid definitions of "cheater."

Since "cheater" is a subjective phrase, it is absolutely crucial that you define it before try to put objects under that category.

2. You don't have an argument just an unethical viewpoint. I am not ignoring your argument at all. Just because everyone else seems to be doing it does not make it valid point. Kudos to Nike they obviously have some ethics and want to show somewhat that making money off of cheating is not okay with them either.


This is simply an ad hominen attack that does nothing to further the discussion. You gave me analogies, I presented arguments as to why your analogies weren't analagous, and you chose to slander my character by calling my viewpoint unethical.

I'm actually kind of curious if you have had the opportunity to study theories of ethics in your life. If you have, then you should be aware that there are several different theories regarding what constitutes ethical behaviour. Just as one example, you could define ethics based on a simple Friedman approach, whereby the most ethical way to conduct oneself is through naked self-interest since this will theoretically lead to the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. Just so we're clear, I don't necessarily subscribe to this approach of ethics, but it is one approach that is widely recognized by the academic community.

My point being, you can't call someone "absolutely unethical," you can call them "relatively unethical" (meaning, their system of ethical thinking doesn't comport to your own system). Ultimately however, calling someone unethical without addressing either their arguments or even why they are unethical is simply defamation.

3. What you think is okay is irrelevant here. The governing body can only address proven cases not yours or someones elses meanderings on how prevalent doping in the sport might be. Again I doubt absolutely everyone in the sport was and is doping. Until you can prove that everyone was and is doping then you have no point. Until the governing body changes the rules to accommodate doping then there is no ethical stand in your points.


This raises several good talking points. First is your statement that "The governing body can only address proven cases." The fault with this statement is clearly emphasized by the Armstrong case. Armstrong has been the victim of a merciless witch hunt that has attempted to bring him down for several years. No other athlete has endured the close scrutiny that he has had to endure. The fact that this is only coming to light 7 years after his last victory shows a desire by the governing body to bring him down which has not been seen in any other case. Therefore, I can complain about the governing body, because its methodology of finding dopers is patently unfair. They have not attempted to find every doper, they have simply aimed their crossairs on a single doper and done everything within their power to bring him down.

Next you state that until the rules are changed I have "no ethical stand in your points." This is clearly a statement that ethics are determined by rules. But I think even you would agree that this isn't the case. If it were the case, then a stance in the 50s that racial segregation wasn't right would have "no ethical stand" either, because the rules of the era dictated segregation. Point being, just because something is a rule in no way makes it ethical. Rules were made to be broken, and in fact, the study of law would show you that most major advances in "society's rules" have occurred because people have stepped outside the boundaries those rules created.

Basic point being:

Rules =/= Ethics

When it comes to doping in any sport the people who govern the sport have to take a zero tolerance to it. The integrity of the sport demands it. It does not matter what your ethics are or what your viewpoint is.

This is simply one belief, and not necessarily even a majority belief. In fact, in light of the Armstrong scandal, people have come out and said it is time to allow doping. See this opinion. There are several arguments for allowing doping.

First, it increases the compete level in the sport. This in turn creates a better spectator sport. Second, the people who are doping at the pro level are consenting adults. If we work on educating people more about the effects of doping and worry less about banning it then we would probably see a reduction in doping, or at a minimum safer doping. This is the same thing that happened with youth sex. Outright banning youth sex has never worked, so the best thing to do is educate youths about the risks of their behaviour. Third, until dopers can be caught 100% of the time they dope, it is inherently unfair to ban doping, since it only punishes those who are caught. Since testing rarely catches offenders, the possibility of getting caught is not significant enough to discourage people from doping. This ultimately means you are punishing the few who get caught for the crimes of the many. With such weak deterrence you are better off allowing people to dope. Fourth, doping has come a long ways and many forms of doping don't actually have significant negative side effects. The main argument against doping is that it creates a race to the bottom by putting pressure on athletes to dope and thereby harm their bodies. However, since there are many "safe" methods of doping now, this argument is largely defunct. Fifth, the current anti-doping regime allows bureaucrats to take aim at individuals instead of the actual problem, ala Lance Armstrong.

These are but a few arguments that are pro allowing athletes to dope, and they clearly show that your position is not the only tenable position. I'm sorry, but just because you disagree with some of what I have said doesn't inherently make you right.

What I find most entertaining about this is the fact that I haven't even stated my own beliefs on the matter, I have simply provided a counter-position to the majoritarian view on this discussion board, and yet you still feel the need to use ad hominen attacks against me.

#15 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,827 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:06 PM

Just because a governing body has deemed doping to be an offence under their rules doesn't make everyone who breaks those rules a "cheater." The term "cheater" is a subjective term that MUST be defined before you can have a coherent discussion about whether someone is a cheater. If you want to define "cheater" as someone who breaks the rules, that's fine. If you want to define "cheater" as someone who does something to gain an unfair advantage over his competition, again that's fine. But the two are not the same thing, yet both are equally valid definitions of "cheater."

Since "cheater" is a subjective phrase, it is absolutely crucial that you define it before try to put objects under that category.



This is simply an ad hominen attack that does nothing to further the discussion. You gave me analogies, I presented arguments as to why your analogies weren't analagous, and you chose to slander my character by calling my viewpoint unethical.

I'm actually kind of curious if you have had the opportunity to study theories of ethics in your life. If you have, then you should be aware that there are several different theories regarding what constitutes ethical behaviour. Just as one example, you could define ethics based on a simple Friedman approach, whereby the most ethical way to conduct oneself is through naked self-interest since this will theoretically lead to the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. Just so we're clear, I don't necessarily subscribe to this approach of ethics, but it is one approach that is widely recognized by the academic community.

My point being, you can't call someone "absolutely unethical," you can call them "relatively unethical" (meaning, their system of ethical thinking doesn't comport to your own system). Ultimately however, calling someone unethical without addressing either their arguments or even why they are unethical is simply defamation.



This raises several good talking points. First is your statement that "The governing body can only address proven cases." The fault with this statement is clearly emphasized by the Armstrong case. Armstrong has been the victim of a merciless witch hunt that has attempted to bring him down for several years. No other athlete has endured the close scrutiny that he has had to endure. The fact that this is only coming to light 7 years after his last victory shows a desire by the governing body to bring him down which has not been seen in any other case. Therefore, I can complain about the governing body, because its methodology of finding dopers is patently unfair. They have not attempted to find every doper, they have simply aimed their crossairs on a single doper and done everything within their power to bring him down.

Next you state that until the rules are changed I have "no ethical stand in your points." This is clearly a statement that ethics are determined by rules. But I think even you would agree that this isn't the case. If it were the case, then a stance in the 50s that racial segregation wasn't right would have "no ethical stand" either, because the rules of the era dictated segregation. Point being, just because something is a rule in no way makes it ethical. Rules were made to be broken, and in fact, the study of law would show you that most major advances in "society's rules" have occurred because people have stepped outside the boundaries those rules created.

Basic point being:

Rules =/= Ethics


This is simply one belief, and not necessarily even a majority belief. In fact, in light of the Armstrong scandal, people have come out and said it is time to allow doping. See this opinion. There are several arguments for allowing doping.

First, it increases the compete level in the sport. This in turn creates a better spectator sport. Second, the people who are doping at the pro level are consenting adults. If we work on educating people more about the effects of doping and worry less about banning it then we would probably see a reduction in doping, or at a minimum safer doping. This is the same thing that happened with youth sex. Outright banning youth sex has never worked, so the best thing to do is educate youths about the risks of their behaviour. Third, until dopers can be caught 100% of the time they dope, it is inherently unfair to ban doping, since it only punishes those who are caught. Since testing rarely catches offenders, the possibility of getting caught is not significant enough to discourage people from doping. This ultimately means you are punishing the few who get caught for the crimes of the many. With such weak deterrence you are better off allowing people to dope. Fourth, doping has come a long ways and many forms of doping don't actually have significant negative side effects. The main argument against doping is that it creates a race to the bottom by putting pressure on athletes to dope and thereby harm their bodies. However, since there are many "safe" methods of doping now, this argument is largely defunct. Fifth, the current anti-doping regime allows bureaucrats to take aim at individuals instead of the actual problem, ala Lance Armstrong.

These are but a few arguments that are pro allowing athletes to dope, and they clearly show that your position is not the only tenable position. I'm sorry, but just because you disagree with some of what I have said doesn't inherently make you right.

What I find most entertaining about this is the fact that I haven't even stated my own beliefs on the matter, I have simply provided a counter-position to the majoritarian view on this discussion board, and yet you still feel the need to use ad hominen attacks against me.



There is nothing subjective about the term Cheater in this topic, unless the rules are/were not clearly defined.
Maybe you should look up the actual definition:

Cheater is defined: one who cheats.
Cheat is to:
verb (used with object)
1.
to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2.
to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
5.
to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.



It does not matter what actions you think are cheating or ethical or not. It is the sport who has set those standards via rules and enforcement. Your opinions make no difference because they have already set the rules and ethical standards.

Saying your view is irrelevant is not an ad hominen attack, however I can see where saying your view is irrelevant might be taken as insulting. If you feel insulted then so be it, that is your prerogative, but as you say you haven't stated what you believe now have you? If it makes you feel any better, my opinion does not matter either for the same reasons, even though it appears that my opinion and yours are different.

The governing body already has defined what is cheating and their actions show me what they feel is ethical or not. Nike also defined to a degree what they feel is ethical with their removal of Lance from sponsorship. Defining Ethics has a much more blurry line as to what is or isn't ethical, especially when lots of money is involved, compared to "cheating".

Witch hunt? There is lots of precedence in many other sports where accomplishments are stripped after the fact. Are you proposing he get a "get out of jail free card" now that a few years have past? Baseball has taken forever handling doping too. It might in some cases seem a few of those players also to be the target of witch hunts (Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens come to mind right away).

In fact if I wanted to debate it, I could make as good a case as yours about Roger Clemens over the same thing. Did Lance ever have to appear to a Congressional Investigation? I would bet he feels just as deeply that his dealings with Baseball and Government are every bit as much a witch hunt as your views with Lance. *insert* that discussion is a much better example of what most would consider subjective*

Personally I could care less how long it takes as long as they ensure they protect the innocent and get it right.

Ethics expected in any sport are defined by the rules. The athletes actions as to follow those rules define how ethical they are. If they were unaware of the rules going into the competition then they would have good reason to claim otherwise. I can not think of any major sport, professional or not, that does not define in advance the rules of competition.

Yes I have taken multiple courses in ethics. All were in Business Ethics but there is little difference.

#16 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,662 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:55 PM

There is nothing subjective about the term Cheater in this topic, unless the rules are/were not clearly defined.
Maybe you should look up the actual definition:

Cheater is defined: one who cheats.
Cheat is to:
verb (used with object)
1.
to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2.
to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
5.
to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.



It does not matter what actions you think are cheating or ethical or not. It is the sport who has set those standards via rules and enforcement. Your opinions make no difference because they have already set the rules and ethical standards.

Saying your view is irrelevant is not an ad hominen attack, however I can see where saying your view is irrelevant might be taken as insulting. If you feel insulted then so be it, that is your prerogative, but as you say you haven't stated what you believe now have you? If it makes you feel any better, my opinion does not matter either for the same reasons, even though it appears that my opinion and yours are different.

The governing body already has defined what is cheating and their actions show me what they feel is ethical or not. Nike also defined to a degree what they feel is ethical with their removal of Lance from sponsorship. Defining Ethics has a much more blurry line as to what is or isn't ethical, especially when lots of money is involved, compared to "cheating".

Witch hunt? There is lots of precedence in many other sports where accomplishments are stripped after the fact. Are you proposing he get a "get out of jail free card" now that a few years have past? Baseball has taken forever handling doping too. It might in some cases seem a few of those players also to be the target of witch hunts (Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens come to mind right away).

In fact if I wanted to debate it, I could make as good a case as yours about Roger Clemens over the same thing. Did Lance ever have to appear to a Congressional Investigation? I would bet he feels just as deeply that his dealings with Baseball and Government are every bit as much a witch hunt as your views with Lance. *insert* that discussion is a much better example of what most would consider subjective*

Personally I could care less how long it takes as long as they ensure they protect the innocent and get it right.

Ethics expected in any sport are defined by the rules. The athletes actions as to follow those rules define how ethical they are. If they were unaware of the rules going into the competition then they would have good reason to claim otherwise. I can not think of any major sport, professional or not, that does not define in advance the rules of competition.

Yes I have taken multiple courses in ethics. All were in Business Ethics but there is little difference.

The one thing you need to realize is that very few (if any) things in life are definitive. I gave the exact definition of "cheater" in my earlier post that you took out of the Meriam-Webster Dictionary. But unfortunately, my other definition of "cheater" was not baseless either, as it comes straight out of another highly respected dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of cheater:

noun

1. a person who acts dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.


a person who cheats on a sexual partner.


My point being that things aren't as black and white as you want to make them appear.

Also, I never said that "saying [my] view is irrelevant" is an ad hominen attack. Clearly it's not an ad hominen attack because my view is irrelevant, just like every view that is expressed on this forum is irrelevant. However, stating that "You don't have an argument just an unethical viewpoint" is an ad hominen attack because it cuts at my character without explaining why my viewpoint is unethical.

I get that you don't like the viewpoint that I have expressed, but that does not make it invalid or unethical. I have expressed this view. I have presented several arguments to show that it is a valid point of view. And, nothing you have said makes it invalid because you have simply attacked the conclusion without invalidating any of the premises.

Now, you can keep arguing with me about this, or you can accept that there is another valid viewpoint to your own, just as I accept that your viewpoint is a valid one. You may not like the opinion I have expressed, but that doesn't make it invalid.

#17 Carty

Carty

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,942 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:01 PM

Posted Image

#18 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,827 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:29 PM

The one thing you need to realize is that very few (if any) things in life are definitive. I gave the exact definition of "cheater" in my earlier post that you took out of the Meriam-Webster Dictionary. But unfortunately, my other definition of "cheater" was not baseless either, as it comes straight out of another highly respected dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of cheater:

noun

1. a person who acts dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.


a person who cheats on a sexual partner.


My point being that things aren't as black and white as you want to make them appear.

Also, I never said that "saying [my] view is irrelevant" is an ad hominen attack. Clearly it's not an ad hominen attack because my view is irrelevant, just like every view that is expressed on this forum is irrelevant. However, stating that "You don't have an argument just an unethical viewpoint" is an ad hominen attack because it cuts at my character without explaining why my viewpoint is unethical.

I get that you don't like the viewpoint that I have expressed, but that does not make it invalid or unethical. I have expressed this view. I have presented several arguments to show that it is a valid point of view. And, nothing you have said makes it invalid because you have simply attacked the conclusion without invalidating any of the premises.

Now, you can keep arguing with me about this, or you can accept that there is another valid viewpoint to your own, just as I accept that your viewpoint is a valid one. You may not like the opinion I have expressed, but that doesn't make it invalid.


You are very humorous Castle. If you have some actual evidence lets see it. If you want to discuss his witchhunt lets not pussyfoot around with the definition of Cheating.

I'll make it simple.
I'll even use your Oxford Dictionary definition.

Yes he is a cheater.
What other people are/were doing has no bearing on that, other than some who confirm he was in fact cheating.

I am basing that on sworn testimonies of 24+ different people of which 12 were members of his cycling team who either saw him using it, or also used it with him.

Even the decision by the UNITED STATES ANTI-DOPING AGENCY
uses the term cheated and then some:

As explained below, the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Armstrong
and his team director, team doctors, team trainers and teammates cheated throughout the 1998 –
2010 time period.

I'm sorry but I don't know whose Dictionary they used to define the term "cheated". What does it really matter?

I'll patiently wait for your definitive evidence to the contrary.

#19 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,144 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:08 PM

So looks like Lance Armstrong has admitted to cheating...


http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/cycling/item/201951-lance-armstrongs-decade-of-doping-denials

Below are some of Armstrong's doping denials since 2001:

2001

"This is my body and I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it, and study it, tweak it, listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?"

-- Advertisement for Nike

July 2005

"I'll say to the people who don't believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. Vive Le Tour."

-- After Armstrong's seventh and final Tour de France victory

August 2005

"I have never doped, I can say it again, but I have said it for seven years -- it doesn't help."

-- On CNN's Larry King Live after French newspaper L'Equipe reports tests on urine samples taken from Armstrong during the 1999 Tour and frozen were positive for blood-boosting erythropoietin (EPO).

2005

"... the faith of all the cancer survivors and almost everything I do off of the bike would go away too. Don't think for a second I don't understand that."

-- In testimony under oath during legal proceedings involving SCA Promotions over a bonus payment for a Tour de France victory.

2007

"I was on my death-bed. You think I'm going to come back into a sport and say, 'OK, OK doctor give me everything you got, I just want to go fast?' No way. I would never do that."

-- Speaking of his life in an interview in Aspen with Bob Schieffer, a respected journalist with CBS and a cancer survivor.

July 2009

"The critics say I'm arrogant. A doper. Washed up. A fraud. That I couldn't let it go. They can say whatever they want. I'm not back on my bike for them."

-- Nike "Driven" commercial in the buildup to Armstrong's first Tour de France since his comeback from retirement, showing Armstrong training in a Livestrong jersey juxtaposed with images of cancer patients.

May 2010

"It's our word against his word. I like our word. We like our credibility. Floyd lost his credibility a long time ago."

-- - Response to disgraced cyclist Floyd Landis's accusations of systematic doping in the US Postal cycling team.

13 June 2012

"I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one."

-- Armstrong responds in a statement when the US Anti-Doping Agency announces its charges against him.

23 August 2012

"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999."

-- Armstrong announces he won't fight USADA's charges and pursue a hearing to prove his innocence.



#20 conundrumed

conundrumed

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,720 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:28 PM

Should we destroy him completely, or let Oprah's compassionate interview technique save him?
His cheating seems to be fine, when everyone is making a ton of money off of him. Now that he's done, they're running away. Hello endorsers, we see you...