RBR people with guts.



B

Bill C

Guest
From:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7454.0.html

Agree with DeCanio? Then don't stay anonymous
Editor:
Thank you for printing this (see "Ofoto fires DeCanio over web sites").


I am a Matt DeCanio fan; I don't always agree with his communicative
skills and tactics, but I am "on his side." I am disappointed to read
that the racing contract hangs in the balance.

When you add this snip to the story . . .


"Matt's pretty confrontational and makes a lot of people angry," one
high-profile professional said, asking to remain anonymous, "but
there's a lot of truth in what he writes on his Web sites."

.. . . it makes me furious that this sport continues to be so tethered
to the drug culture. Where are the guts that allow a rider to address
your story and agree with Matt, yet hide behind the "anonymous source"
mask?

Richard Sachs
Chester, Connecticut



Got to give Mr. Sachs credit for having the guts to speak up, AND put
his name to it. For someone doing what he does it's probably not the
best thing for short term business to take shots at pro racers and the
people running things.
Of course I agree with him and really respect how he conducts himself
and how his team runs. I'm sure that there are a shitload of racers who
know exactly what some of their fellow competitors are taking and then
don't do anything but ***** about it privately. They're gutless and are
just as big a part of the problem. Maybe a lot of this **** is being
reported, and nothing is happening, but I don't think that would've
stayed quiet if it was happening. It's time for pro riders here who've
had enough of this **** to speak up, volunteer to be tested, and dime
out people they think are doping. Yeah it could develop into something
of a witchunt, but I don't think that having to submit to testing is
too big a price to pay for having a USPRO license. Having to do it
would also be some payback for ignoring the problem for so long.
At least Richie is a standup guy, unlike a certain pro around here and
quite a few other pros out there too.
Bill C
 
On 25 Jan 2005 10:34:50 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Got to give Mr. Sachs credit for having the guts to speak up, AND put
>his name to it. For someone doing what he does it's probably not the
>best thing for short term business to take shots at pro racers and the
>people running things.
>Of course I agree with him and really respect how he conducts himself
>and how his team runs. I'm sure that there are a shitload of racers who
>know exactly what some of their fellow competitors are taking and then
>don't do anything but ***** about it privately. They're gutless and are
>just as big a part of the problem.

I'm guessing that Mr. Sachs won't lose much business. Unless an
opinion threatens someone directly, I can't see any real
ramifications, and his isn't a direct threat to anyone specific.

As to racers that don't report others being as big a part of the
problem, I'm not sure who the 'big as' is in reference, but I'll
probably disagree regardless.

For one thing, it is unlikely to be a monolithic response stemming
from either conspiracy or gutlessness. Some have too many other
priorities. Some are gutless. Some probably figure most of the drug
takers are doing it in a lame manner and aren't winning anyway. Some
don't want the hassle for what isn't a major issue for them. Some may
think that maybe until the USAC starts serious testing, why should
they be the frontrunner. Maybe some think the whole USAC drug process
lacks credibility, what with some still racing while others get sat
down.

If the USAC crowd seem to spend their time floating around the issue
and hoping and waiting for some mandated external group to do the
heavy lifting for them, why SHOULD an individual racer take it upon
themself to do it?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> down.
>
> If the USAC crowd seem to spend their time floating around the issue
> and hoping and waiting for some mandated external group to do the
> heavy lifting for them, why SHOULD an individual racer take it upon
> themself to do it?
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

I see it as being along the same lines as baseball. The league was not
going to be able to do anything, and didn't really want to IMO, because
of the opposition from the players and their union. It finally took
enough clean players getting ****** off enough to oppose their own
union to get at least some action through on doping. In cycling the
effect of drugs is much more immediate in relationship to the results
than in a "team" sport so I would think that it would benefit the
racers even more to speak out. Unfortunately the money issue hasn't hit
cycling the way it looked like it was going to hit baseball. I think
they were terrified of losing tens of millions of dollars in
advertising and endorsements so they did something. That is never going
to a factor in cycling, especially here as far as I can tell. There
just aren't that many companies putting up that kind of money here, and
the ones that have seem to have gone along with ignoring the problem.
The only thing that I can see that would kill pro cycling here would be
Lance getting caught red-handed. If that happens I don't think we'll be
able to raise enough sponsorship to support much more than the local
parking lot crit let alone major events.
The problem is that almost nobody is taking a real stand, and there
are a lot of serious questions about the anti-doping system and the way
it's run here. Plenty of blame to go around, but somebody needs to step
up, or we just need to class cycling with bodybuilding and pro
wrestling and leave it at that.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:
>
> I see it as being along the same lines as baseball. The league was
not
> going to be able to do anything, and didn't really want to IMO,
because
> of the opposition from the players and their union. It finally took
> enough clean players getting ****** off enough to oppose their own
> union to get at least some action through on doping. In cycling the
> effect of drugs is much more immediate in relationship to the results
> than in a "team" sport so I would think that it would benefit the
> racers even more to speak out. Unfortunately the money issue hasn't
hit
> cycling the way it looked like it was going to hit baseball. I think
> they were terrified of losing tens of millions of dollars in
> advertising and endorsements so they did something.


<snip>



Jesus Christ.

You've really got your head up your ass. The drug testing in cycling is
100 times more rigorous than that of baseball. For instance, baseball
doesn't even test for amphetamines and it's the most widely abused
drug.

From:
http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/8096308

NEW YORK -- Amphetamines were untouched by baseball's new
drug-testing agreement, with the issue left for the sport's medical
advisers to study.
Some say amphetamine use is more widespread than steroid use in a sport
when players are ground down by playing 162 games over 183 days during
the regular season, with constant travel and all-night flights leaving
many weary.

"Amphetamines, better known as 'greenies,' have a long tradition in
baseball," Dr. Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency said after
baseball announced its new deal Thursday.
<snip><end>



thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Jesus Christ.
>
> You've really got your head up your ass. The drug testing in cycling
is
> 100 times more rigorous than that of baseball. For instance, baseball
> doesn't even test for amphetamines and it's the most widely abused
> drug.
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

I know that. But if cyclists had a union as strong as the MLBPA I have
real questions about what testing would look like. The only reason that
baseball hase any testing at all is that the players chose to push for
it. If it was left up to the union there would have been absolutely no
change. I don't care what the League or Washington grandstanders said,
if the Union continued to block it, that was going to be it.
I don't think baseball's system is going to do **** in reality, but
the fact that players actually spoke up against dopers, and their own
union to make at least something happen is what I'm saying we need to
happen if cycling is ever going to be cleaned up. It's never going to
happen from the outside and it'll never be cleaned up completely. I do
think that it could be a lot cleaner, especially on the US level where
the money for sophisticated designer drugs, treatments, programs is a
lot less available. That's one reason I really think that high level
athletes in major sports get caught so rarely. They have more than
enough money, and access to people with the latest research that are
happy to take their money to beat the testing system.
This is one point where I agree with Brian. If Lance is, or was doping
you can be absolutely sure that he was getting the very best medical,
and scientific care that shitloads of money could buy to protect his
health as much as possible and avoid detection. That is going to make
it incredibly hard to come up with a smoking gun if there is one.
Bill C
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
>
>
> Jesus Christ.
>
> You've really got your head up your ass. The drug testing in cycling
is
> 100 times more rigorous than that of baseball. For instance, baseball
> doesn't even test for amphetamines and it's the most widely abused
> drug.
>
> From:
> http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/8096308
>
> NEW YORK -- Amphetamines were untouched by baseball's new
> drug-testing agreement, with the issue left for the sport's medical
> advisers to study.
> Some say amphetamine use is more widespread than steroid use in a
sport
> when players are ground down by playing 162 games over 183 days
during
> the regular season, with constant travel and all-night flights
leaving
> many weary.
>
> "Amphetamines, better known as 'greenies,' have a long tradition in
> baseball," Dr. Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency said after
> baseball announced its new deal Thursday.
> <snip><end>
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

I think that the motion in baseball from what they had to the position
now is much more significant than what is going on in cycling. I still
think the new policy in baseball is going to be ineffective, unless the
players who are ****** off and had the guts to challenge their own
union start reporting people for doping. I think that it's going to
turn out to be cosmetic, but can you show me a rider revolt that led to
better anti-doping in cycling? You've got a handfull of people trying
to make it happen, but they seem to be getting slapped down by their
fellow riders. I've seen some of the **** Justin has had to take. Not
for doping, but for speaking out afterwards. We ran into him after GMBC
on the way home and let him know that we appreciated his speaking out
and didn't think it was right that he was taking so much ****.
I do agree with Brian that it's going to take a miracle to catch Lance
red-handed if he is doping. Lance has the resources and smarts to get
the newest designer stuff, and best advice on how to use it if he
wanted to. It's the same thing in other major sports, when mediocre
players are making 7 or 8 mil a year they can afford to stay ahead of
the testing such as it is. I think that there is hope for making US pro
cycling pretty clean because the cost/benefit really isn't there, and
the money to stay ahead of the testing is a lot rarer. This would also
become a lot tougher to do if riders were stepping up and pointing out
people for testing.
Relatively cycling is in a much better position to clean things up
domestically, but it's going to have to come from the riders or it's
going to like just like the wider "war on drugs" which has been a
dismal failure at best, as you've pointed out numerous times.
I would think that racers would have more motivation to speak out
since doping in cycling has a much more immediate effect on overall
results than in just about any other sport here.
Bill C
 
On 25 Jan 2005 11:47:39 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> That is never going
>to a factor in cycling, especially here as far as I can tell. There
>just aren't that many companies putting up that kind of money here, and
>the ones that have seem to have gone along with ignoring the problem.
>The only thing that I can see that would kill pro cycling here would be
>Lance getting caught red-handed. If that happens I don't think we'll be
>able to raise enough sponsorship to support much more than the local
>parking lot crit let alone major events.
>The problem is that almost nobody is taking a real stand, and there
>are a lot of serious questions about the anti-doping system and the way
>it's run here. Plenty of blame to go around, but somebody needs to step
>up, or we just need to class cycling with bodybuilding and pro
>wrestling and leave it at that.

I think what they were afraid of in the environmental sense was the
U.S. government stepping in and making the waters real muddy. The
micro issue that made it all possible, considering the union has no
problem with shutting down the business, was that there were more
players that wanted testing than players that didn't. Also the reason
IMO that the testing is in such a narrow band.

Bicycle racing is worse than hockey. The number that know about pro
racing is small and the number that will miss it far fewer. Killing
pro racing would be, at best, gratuitous. At best, merciful and the
rest of us can spend more time riding our bikes in summer. IMO
wouldn't be a blip on the amateur and semi-amateur scene.

'Plenty of blame to go around' is like 'forgotten more than most
people have ever learned' for me. I'm never sure that either survives
much scrutiny. Its a great phrase for those that aren't doing their
job, so I'm sure at some point we'll hear it used by USAC. The real
point is that the blame is not something to be passed around, but that
the real responsibility lies with USAC IMO. Bike racers are paid to
race. Someone else is paid to administer and program.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Bill C wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > Jesus Christ.
> >
> > You've really got your head up your ass. The drug testing in
cycling
> is
> > 100 times more rigorous than that of baseball. For instance,
baseball
> > doesn't even test for amphetamines and it's the most widely abused
> > drug.
> >
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> I know that. But if cyclists had a union as strong as the MLBPA I
have
> real questions about what testing would look like. The only reason
that
> baseball hase any testing at all is that the players chose to push
for
> it.


<snip>



Dumbass -

Get your facts straight.

The OWNERS pushed for it and Donald Fehr (head of the players' union)
nixed it. In the last negotiation of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, all they got was some preseason testing.

The only reason the players finally gave in (and dumbasses like you are
trying to give them credit for it) is Senator John McCain was
threatening to make the non-testing an issue in the US Senate.
Baseball's antitrust exemption was at stake and the union caved in.

Do not give the players credit for that. They are the ones who resist
the most. The owners want it. If you don't believe me, I'll post links.
thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> From:
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7454.0.html

I respect Richard as well. But I don't hand this problem over to the "drug
culture" as if that answered anything. I can't remember 70's heads using EPO
and Testosterone.

What I DO remember is the sort of people like Anquetil who thought that
racing straight wasn't any fun.

If you can't understand why Museeuw might dope to make a better impact near
retirement then you are too young to hold intelligent opinions.

If on the other hand, Museeuw doped his whole career to be the 'best' that
is something else altogether and it isn't "drug culture" at all.

You can't solve a problem if you don't understand the reasons that motivate
those with the problem. And you can't solve anything by simply crying about
it and unfortunately that's what DeCanio seems to be doing.

I wish Matt well but I do hope he grows up and realizes that the best we can
do is the BEST we can do. Screaming that isn't enough was something that
came from the drug culture.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jesus Christ.
>
> You've really got your head up your ass. The drug testing in cycling is
> 100 times more rigorous than that of baseball. For instance, baseball
> doesn't even test for amphetamines and it's the most widely abused
> drug.

Kudoes on a well written reply for a change.

> From:
> http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/8096308
>
> NEW YORK -- Amphetamines were untouched by baseball's new
> drug-testing agreement, with the issue left for the sport's medical
> advisers to study.
> Some say amphetamine use is more widespread than steroid use in a sport
> when players are ground down by playing 162 games over 183 days during
> the regular season, with constant travel and all-night flights leaving
> many weary.
>
> "Amphetamines, better known as 'greenies,' have a long tradition in
> baseball," Dr. Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency said after
> baseball announced its new deal Thursday.
> <snip><end>

Henry, next time they zoom in on the dugout look at the players and see if
you can see the foremost symptom of someone on speed - they chew gum.
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > > Jesus Christ.
> > >
> > > You've really got your head up your ass. The drug testing in
> cycling
> > is
> > > 100 times more rigorous than that of baseball. For instance,
> baseball
> > > doesn't even test for amphetamines and it's the most widely
abused
> > > drug.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > K. Gringioni.
> >
> > I know that. But if cyclists had a union as strong as the MLBPA I
> have
> > real questions about what testing would look like. The only reason
> that
> > baseball hase any testing at all is that the players chose to push
> for
> > it.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Get your facts straight.
>
> The OWNERS pushed for it and Donald Fehr (head of the players' union)
> nixed it. In the last negotiation of the Collective Bargaining
> Agreement, all they got was some preseason testing.

That is correct. The Union was blocking the testing very successfully
and still would be if they had their way.

>
> The only reason the players finally gave in (and dumbasses like you
are
> trying to give them credit for it) is Senator John McCain was
> threatening to make the non-testing an issue in the US Senate.
> Baseball's antitrust exemption was at stake and the union caved in.

I don't think anyone in baseball took McCains threats seriously. From
time to time politicians and others have threatened to, and at times
attempted to revoke the anti-trust exemption. They've never even come
close. Both the owners and the Union would've fought it and there's no
way in hell it was going to happen. If you take a hard look at McCains
record there's a shitload of grandstanding, but very little in the way
of hard legislation, he has a real shortage of friends on both sides of
the aisle to get anything done.
>
> Do not give the players credit for that. They are the ones who resist
> the most. The owners want it. If you don't believe me, I'll post
links.
> thanks,
>
I'm not sure how closely you followed this. It is true that the
commisioner and the owners wanted it, but if a fair number of players
hadn't revolted against the union and a few even tried to oust Fehr
over this nothing would've happened. They would've gone to court over
the fact that they had a signed, legal collective bargaining agreement
and won. Period.

> K. Gringioni.

Bill C
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > From:
> > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7454.0.html
>
> I respect Richard as well. But I don't hand this problem over to the
"drug
> culture" as if that answered anything. I can't remember 70's heads
using EPO
> and Testosterone.
>
> What I DO remember is the sort of people like Anquetil who thought
that
> racing straight wasn't any fun.
>
> If you can't understand why Museeuw might dope to make a better
impact near
> retirement then you are too young to hold intelligent opinions.
>
> If on the other hand, Museeuw doped his whole career to be the 'best'
that
> is something else altogether and it isn't "drug culture" at all.
>
> You can't solve a problem if you don't understand the reasons that
motivate
> those with the problem. And you can't solve anything by simply crying
about
> it and unfortunately that's what DeCanio seems to be doing.

Agreed, but neither Richard or I are saying that is going to solve the
problem. I'm saying that this is going nowhere until the clean racers
get fed up and start turning in every doper they can find to USAC.
Passing laws does not make people obey them, and the enforcement has
been pretty weak too.
>
> I wish Matt well but I do hope he grows up and realizes that the best
we can
> do is the BEST we can do. Screaming that isn't enough was something
that
> came from the drug culture.

I'm not sure what you're ranting about here, but I do not think that
all racers are part of some monolithic "drug culture". I know quite a
few who would love to see dopers put out of the sport permanently and
have worked behind the scenes to try to make it happen, but as Brian
has said the "Omerta" has got to end before things really change.
Bill C
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm not sure what you're ranting about here, but I do not think that
> all racers are part of some monolithic "drug culture". I know quite a
> few who would love to see dopers put out of the sport permanently and
> have worked behind the scenes to try to make it happen, but as Brian
> has said the "Omerta" has got to end before things really change.

Here's the problem Bill: Lafferty hasn't a damned clue! Omerta is a code of
silence among co-conspirators. The reason that most cyclists don't complain
is because they don't know who dopes and who doesn't.

Suspicion is hardly grounds for screaming to the authorities. And to tell
you the truth, that's what DeCanio has been doing. Maybe he knows one or two
dopers but he's telling us that everyone dopes.

I find it unfortunate but possible that Tyler would blood pack. He ways he
hasn't and I'm willing to cut him enough slack to make his case in court.

But the idea that someone who underwent cancer chemotherapy would dope is
almost beyond reason. Don't people understand the the way that Lance
survived was by having the greatest respect for his own life? Would he then
gamble on his odds again? That I don't believe!

I took my mother in for chemotherapy for three or whatever it was courses. I
sat in that waiting room with those patients. I don't think that anyone that
lived would willingly take aspirin after that.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're ranting about here, but I do not think that
>> all racers are part of some monolithic "drug culture". I know quite a
>> few who would love to see dopers put out of the sport permanently and
>> have worked behind the scenes to try to make it happen, but as Brian
>> has said the "Omerta" has got to end before things really change.
>
> Here's the problem Bill: Lafferty hasn't a damned clue! Omerta is a code
> of silence among co-conspirators. The reason that most cyclists don't
> complain is because they don't know who dopes and who doesn't.
>
> Suspicion is hardly grounds for screaming to the authorities. And to tell
> you the truth, that's what DeCanio has been doing. Maybe he knows one or
> two dopers but he's telling us that everyone dopes.

Now support that assertion with facts. Before you answer, think about
Manzano and the Festina boys.
>
> I find it unfortunate but possible that Tyler would blood pack. He ways he
> hasn't and I'm willing to cut him enough slack to make his case in court.
>
> But the idea that someone who underwent cancer chemotherapy would dope is
> almost beyond reason. Don't people understand the the way that Lance
> survived was by having the greatest respect for his own life? Would he
> then gamble on his odds again? That I don't believe!

However, in his first book, Armstrong said that his cancer experience taught
him to live only for the present with no expectations for the future. That
runs against your theory.

>
> I took my mother in for chemotherapy for three or whatever it was courses.
> I sat in that waiting room with those patients. I don't think that anyone
> that lived would willingly take aspirin after that.

Not a logical conclusion.

>
>
 
I really wonder if you will EVER get a clue Brian.

Using a so-called quote from a ghost written bio is about the sort of
proof we canb expect from a lawyer who can't hold a job.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I really wonder if you will EVER get a clue Brian.
>
> Using a so-called quote from a ghost written bio is about the sort of
> proof we canb expect from a lawyer who can't hold a job.

Dopey, the book was written with and approved prior to publication by
Armstrong himself. Do you have any facts indicating that he has repudiated
that or anything else that was written in the book?
 
B Lafferty wrote:
>
> Glad to see that you have an inside line on what Armstrong thinks and
feels.
> I think that your basic assumption is flawed. There are plenty of
people
> who make plans for the future without care to the harm they may be
doing to
> their body. Just because you're a cancer survivor doesn't
necessarily
> change that. Nor doe it mean that you are not willingly still a risk
taker.
> What would you risk today for $million+ if the danger of an earlier
death
> (say, prior to age 60) was roughly 25%?




Dumbass -

You are correct.

As an aside: would you consider someone who spends 20 minutes/day
attacking a meaningless sports figure on the Internet a loser?
thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
"Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Glad to see that you have an inside line on what Armstrong thinks and
>>> feels.
>
> No, I wouldn't infringe on your territory. Everything I'm saying is based
> on his actions. It's a matter of public record that he's won the Tour a
> few times and he's trained obsessively in order to do so. You can look it
> up, if you like.

Sorry Tim, but I only know what I by reading and other observation. His
actions are there, but it's the mental outlook that we're are discussing.
Amrstrong has stated his post-cancer mental out look. That does not mean
that one stops living. One acknowledges that cancer survival can change ones
perspective on the future. That is far different from saying that as a
cancer survivor he would never use performence enhancing drugs. That
doesn't follow and as I pointed out, his statements go against such a
position. His statements are also not proof of a willingness to juice.
>
>> I think that your basic assumption is flawed. There are plenty of people
>> who make plans for the future without care to the harm they may be doing
>> to their body.
>
> That's funny! Even YOU don't read your own posts! ADHD, maybe? What you
> said was "his cancer experience taught him to live only for the present
> with no expectations for the future." Now you're saying that he does have
> expectations for the future and his willing to harm himself in order to
> see them realized.

Expectations are far different from hopes. One hopes to wake up in the
morning. One hopes to win the Tour. One does not expect this. Some people
are fixated on expectations---desires.
Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind
on the present moment.--Buddha

>
> Let me know when you've made up your mind. Maybe I'll agree with you.

I could care less whether you agree with me or not. Your opinion is of no
consequence. :)
 
B Lafferty wrote:

> Sorry Tim, but I only know what I by reading and other observation. His
> actions are there, but it's the mental outlook that we're are discussing.

Well, OK, observation is good. I have no idea what you're observing
that leads you to believe he "lives for the present" other than a cliche
you read from his first book.

All I've said is that he spends a lot of time preparing to race well in
the future. This is observable. There's good evidence to support it.
There are quotes scattered all over the Internet that read like:

"His dedication is legendary. Like other current sporting greats such as
Woods or Schumacher, Armstrong is not only the best, he also works
hardest." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/2051165.stm)

I also consider his wins sufficient evidence of advance preparation, of
thought toward his future.


> Amrstrong has stated his post-cancer mental out look. That does not mean
> that one stops living. One acknowledges that cancer survival can change ones
> perspective on the future. That is far different from saying that as a
> cancer survivor he would never use performence enhancing drugs. That
> doesn't follow and as I pointed out, his statements go against such a
> position. His statements are also not proof of a willingness to juice.
>
>>>I think that your basic assumption is flawed. There are plenty of people
>>>who make plans for the future without care to the harm they may be doing
>>>to their body.
>>
>>That's funny! Even YOU don't read your own posts! ADHD, maybe? What you
>>said was "his cancer experience taught him to live only for the present
>>with no expectations for the future." Now you're saying that he does have
>>expectations for the future and his willing to harm himself in order to
>>see them realized.
>
>
> Expectations are far different from hopes. One hopes to wake up in the
> morning. One hopes to win the Tour. One does not expect this. Some people
> are fixated on expectations---desires.
> Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind
> on the present moment.--Buddha

I understood what the problem was after I posted last time, actually.
Lance said he "lives for the present". We interpreted that differently.
I assume that "lives for the present" means "lives for the present".
Which he obviously isn't doing since he spends so much time preparing
for the future. You assume that "lives for the present" means "lives to
race well each July and is willing to take drugs to do it."


>
>
>>Let me know when you've made up your mind. Maybe I'll agree with you.
>
>
> I could care less whether you agree with me or not. Your opinion is of no
> consequence. :)

And your opinion is a weighty, ponderous thing that the world stops and
holds its breath over in order to stifle the laugh.
 
"Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>B Lafferty wrote:
>
>> Sorry Tim, but I only know what I by reading and other observation. His
>> actions are there, but it's the mental outlook that we're are discussing.
>
> Well, OK, observation is good. I have no idea what you're observing that
> leads you to believe he "lives for the present" other than a cliche you
> read from his first book.
>
> All I've said is that he spends a lot of time preparing to race well in
> the future. This is observable. There's good evidence to support it.
> There are quotes scattered all over the Internet that read like:
>
> "His dedication is legendary. Like other current sporting greats such as
> Woods or Schumacher, Armstrong is not only the best, he also works
> hardest."
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/2051165.stm)
>
> I also consider his wins sufficient evidence of advance preparation, of
> thought toward his future.
>
>
>> Amrstrong has stated his post-cancer mental out look. That does not mean
>> that one stops living. One acknowledges that cancer survival can change
>> ones perspective on the future. That is far different from saying that as
>> a cancer survivor he would never use performence enhancing drugs. That
>> doesn't follow and as I pointed out, his statements go against such a
>> position. His statements are also not proof of a willingness to juice.
>>
>>>>I think that your basic assumption is flawed. There are plenty of
>>>>people who make plans for the future without care to the harm they may
>>>>be doing to their body.
>>>
>>>That's funny! Even YOU don't read your own posts! ADHD, maybe? What
>>>you said was "his cancer experience taught him to live only for the
>>>present with no expectations for the future." Now you're saying that he
>>>does have expectations for the future and his willing to harm himself in
>>>order to see them realized.
>>
>>
>> Expectations are far different from hopes. One hopes to wake up in the
>> morning. One hopes to win the Tour. One does not expect this. Some
>> people are fixated on expectations---desires.
>> Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the
>> mind on the present moment.--Buddha
>
> I understood what the problem was after I posted last time, actually.
> Lance said he "lives for the present". We interpreted that differently. I
> assume that "lives for the present" means "lives for the present". Which
> he obviously isn't doing since he spends so much time preparing for the
> future. You assume that "lives for the present" means "lives to race well
> each July and is willing to take drugs to do it."
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Let me know when you've made up your mind. Maybe I'll agree with you.
>>
>>
>> I could care less whether you agree with me or not. Your opinion is of
>> no consequence. :)
>
> And your opinion is a weighty, ponderous thing that the world stops and
> holds its breath over in order to stifle the laugh.

Hug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Speedweek and RBR
Replies
0
Views
411
Road Cycling
Bill C
B
H
HC Rules RBR for Greatest Number of 2008 Posts
Replies
18
Views
625
Road Cycling
William Asher
W
T
Real RBR Members:
Replies
60
Views
2K
Road Cycling
ST
S
T
Re: rbr messiah myth present list
Replies
10
Views
483
Road Cycling
William Asher
W
R
Re: rbr messiah myth present list
Replies
0
Views
436
Road Cycling
Ryan Cousineau
R
Top Bottom Back