limerickman said:
Good - glad to read this.
Just revisited the portion of this thread where I responded with a bit of overzealousness to Andrija. Given the conciliatory posts that followed, I too will acknowledge that I stepped over a line. I enjoy participating in this forum from time to time -- one thing I really enjoy about it is that there are members from literally all over the world. That fact, however, also gives rise to one of only two pet peeves I have about these discussion. First, although I am sympathetic to a bit of nationalistic fervor, I dislike it when I see people targeting a cyclist or a forum member by projecting a dislike for the nation he/she represents, or when generalizations are made in this same light. You want to dislike Lance Armstrong because you think he's a boor and quite probably a doper? Fine. But when you suggest that he is those things because he's an American, then I take offense. Reading between the lines of Andrija's criticisms of the NYC marathon revealed a premise -- Americans like their events to be bigger and better, which makes their winners bigger and better, therefore the NYC marathon must be full of cheating Americans trying to get away with something -- why else would Armstrong run it? That's piling inference upon inference, and I responded vehemently to the tactic.
And that leads to my second pet peeve, which is the "guilty until proven innocent" vibe that seems to be present in here from time to time relating to allegations of doping within the professional cycling community. Apparently, "everyone does it", so we should revile anyone who wins a cycling event. But it seems to me that this condemnations are always selective. If you don't like the winner to begin with, he must be doping. If you are sympathetic to the winner, then you simply applaud him. Where's the consistency? The way I see it, if everyone is doping and you find that intolerable, then you follow the sport at your own risk. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.
In my view, I suspect that one of two things is true. The skeptics are wrong, drug testing is effective but not infallible, and from time to time we will be presented with the discouraging news that a participant has succumbed to the temptation. The other possibility is that the skeptics are right, and everyone in the professional cycling world is in on the same dirty secret -- they're all doping. And if that's the case, then what does it really matter? Let's let them all ride with hyperdermic needles sticking out of their arms and their doctors and pharmacists riding in the team cars. At least that way everyone has the same advantage and we can stop with the holier than thou "I'm shocked, shocked I tell you" sanctimony that appears in here far too often and which chokes the life out of many a legitimate thread.
Like this one, for example. In his retirement, a 7-time TdF winner is dabbling in long-distance running; that's an interesting story. A ubiquitous fixture in this forums, WBT, just ran his first marathon in a quite respectable time -- that adds some flavor to the discussion (incidentally, WBT -- my wife beat your time by a scant minute in the Bank of America marathon in Tampa in Feb, but she was running her third
). Do we really have to taint everything with unfounded assertions that the NYC marathon is a "dopers event" and so gee, no wonder Armstrong's entered. He must still be on the juice.
All that being said, I bear no ill will toward Andrija or anyone else in this forum, but I will point out what I perceive to be either unprovoked xenophobia or rumormongering for its own sake.
That being said, I have to go back to work now. My wife has decided to set her sights on completing an Ironman triathalon, which of course necessitated her sudden purchase of an expensive road bike.