Lance Armstrong and cheating

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
rob211
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:24 pm

Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby rob211 » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:41 pm

I enjoyed Michael Shermer's article in eSkeptic about doping in cycling. It's one of the best analyses I've seen, perhaps because he's a skeptic, scientist and pretty darn good cyclist.

If you want to read a statement that personifies a Tour de France's rider's dilemma in facing a peloton full of cheaters, see Jonathan Vaughter's admissions in the New York Times August 11th. He describes the pressure to conform, just how much of a difference that 2% marginal boost in performance means in professional sports, and how honest competitors have their dreams crushed.

Shermer didn't spend much time discussing the particulars of Lance Armstrong and his decision to roll over on USADA's charges of doping and conspiracy, but I think Armstrong's case is of particular interest to skeptics not only because of the doping issues, but because of the reluctance of people to accept evidence that a conspiracy of silence DOES exist. Yeah, I know: we are usually hear extolling the virtues of waiting for evidence, and doubting that conspiracies exist. I was that way. But now, as evidence mounts and mounts that all of cycling was riddled with institutionalized cheating, we have Armstrong defenders refusing to accept any evidence that he could have cheated. Even after Armstrong admitted as much by refusing to fight the allegations.

I can understand why some in cycling defend him still, for their livelihoods still depend on it. That includes coaches who actively participated in doping or supplying it, commentators who never looked into it, and the competitors themselves. But why do some fans cling so to the Lance myth when even his teammates have refused to back him and in many cases (10+) averred that he did cheat?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7984
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby Aztexan » Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:03 am

Can't the man rest in peace? Lance Armstrong did not cheat. There is footage of him walking on the moon!













:nuts:
trump is literally a piece of {!#%@}.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10531
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 02, 2012 4:40 pm

Aztexan wrote:Can't the man rest in peace? Lance Armstrong did not cheat. There is footage of him walking on the moon!
:nuts:

Pfft! Doppelganger.

But, no worries. Cheating in sports is cyclical.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby fromthehills » Sun Sep 02, 2012 7:40 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote: Cheating in sports is cyclical.


And they always end up back pedaling when they get caught.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7984
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby Aztexan » Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:34 pm

The wise men have spokes.
trump is literally a piece of {!#%@}.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby fromthehills » Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:56 pm

I think the en-tire thing has become inflated.

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby Donnageddon » Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:59 pm

The sport of cycling has certainly slipped a gear.
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29469
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby Gord » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:12 am

rob211 wrote:I enjoyed Michael Shermer's article in eSkeptic about doping in cycling.

Hi. Just ignore the posters above, they're stuck in joke mode. ;)
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby justinrapper » Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:40 pm

Skeptics hallmark is denial and they are being very consistent in the case of Lance Armstrong. They first denied the evidence was there to convict Armstrong. Now they are denying Armstrong could have done it. Nike dropped their sponsorship of Armstrong. You can all check your box.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby Tom Palven » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:14 pm

Defending Armstrong's actions in order to protect one's sport/livelihood exemplify the educationally dominant utilitarian and situational ethics wherein the desired ends justify the means, currently seeming to corrupt all walks of life in Western society.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong and cheating

Postby justinrapper » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:35 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:Defending Armstrong's actions in order to protect one's sport/livelihood exemplify the educationally dominant utilitarian and situational ethics wherein the desired ends justify the means, currently seeming to corrupt all walks of life in Western society.

In a drug-taking culture like America why is anybody even shocked. As for the cheating or ends justifying the means that is even more deeply rooted in American culture. There is a reason why he is still an American hero. :roll: It is not that he cheated, it is that he cheated well.


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest