opinion piece on Tyler Hamilton

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by John Forrest Tomlinson, Mar 22, 2006.

  1. Tags:


  2. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    > http://www.xcskiracing.com/Home/tabid/351/EntryID/163/Default.aspx
    >
    > JT
    >
    > ****************************
    > Remove "remove" to reply
    > Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    > ****************************


    Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.
    Bill C
     
  3. RicodJour

    RicodJour Guest

    Bill C wrote:
    > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    > > http://www.xcskiracing.com/Home/tabid/351/EntryID/163/Default.aspx
    > >

    >
    > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.


    J. Edgar also wore a dress - kind of took the edge off and made him
    seem more....not human...what's the word I'm looking for? Right,
    weird.

    R
     
  4. Jim Flom

    Jim Flom Guest

    "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote ...
    >
    > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.


    "Good, now that I've done the really manly thing and trashed someone on the
    Internet, I feel much better."
    ....says it all...

    JF
     
  5. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Jim Flom wrote:
    > "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote ...
    > >
    > > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.

    >
    > "Good, now that I've done the really manly thing and trashed someone on the
    > Internet, I feel much better."
    > ...says it all...
    >
    > JF


    I'd welcome the chance to tell him in person, but I'm not sure he has
    any time in his schedule for talking to the peasants.
    Bill C
     
  6. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    Bill C wrote:
    > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.


    If you assume the author is a liberal then it all makes sense.

    Bob Schwartz
     
  7. On 22 Mar 2006 21:38:54 -0800, "RicodJour" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >J. Edgar also wore a dress - kind of took the edge off and made him
    >seem more....not human...what's the word I'm looking for? Right,
    >weird.


    After I first heard that, I've always had a visual of Mr. Toad
    escaping from prison in the Disney version of Wind in the Willows
    (also in a dress, for those of you not into the classics). Except, of
    course, Mr. Toad being the more human of the two.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USa)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
  8. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Bob Schwartz wrote:
    > Bill C wrote:
    > > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.

    >
    > If you assume the author is a liberal then it all makes sense.
    >
    > Bob Schwartz


    Bob, I'm not even sure I know what a "liberal" is these days, and
    neither do they IMO. There's an awful big chunk of territory from the
    moderately conservative old school Kennedy liberals out to the lunatic
    fringe. It's like trying to put a particular label on the ever changing
    view through a kaleidoscope.
    I am sure that I'm a whole lot closer to the "Kennedy" group than I am
    to the clowns in, and around, the Whitehouse and conservative
    leadership right now, but I'm just as far from Mike Moore and Jane
    Fonda too.
    I guess I need a new term, because I expect liberals to stand up for
    individual rights, equality, fairness, and oppose the people in power
    running these things over and abusing them. When I see someone who
    claims to be liberal cheering on just the opposite it really depresses
    me and pisses me off. For me I guess it's like a lot of reformed
    smokers or alcoholics, who become the biggest assholes on the planet on
    those subjects after their reformation.
    But if liberals aren't going to stand and fight tooth and nail for
    those things, who's going to? And if they don't, don't you think it's
    important enough to call them on it?
    Bill C
     
  9. Tim Lines

    Tim Lines Guest

    Bill C wrote:

    > Bob, I'm not even sure I know what a "liberal" is these days, and
    > neither do they IMO.


    You've also got big spending, big government,
    involved-in-the-lives-of-every-citizen conservatives these days.

    <snip>

    > I guess I need a new term, because I expect liberals to stand up for
    > individual rights,


    Really? Back in the days when I read a lot of Ayn Rand, I got the idea
    that conservatives were in favor of individual rights and liberals were
    in favor of collective rights.

    But I imagine the neocons never heard of Ayn Rand. Probably never read
    any of Alan Greenspan's early stuff either. At least it didn't
    influence them much.

    It is a sign of how much things have flip-flopped that that we now
    expect liberals to champion individual rights and conservatives to
    expand the role of the government. Liberals are not well suited to the
    task.
     
  10. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    Bill C wrote:
    > I guess I need a new term, because I expect liberals to stand up for
    > individual rights, equality, fairness, and oppose the people in power
    > running these things over and abusing them. When I see someone who
    > claims to be liberal cheering on just the opposite it really depresses
    > me and pisses me off. For me I guess it's like a lot of reformed
    > smokers or alcoholics, who become the biggest assholes on the planet on
    > those subjects after their reformation.
    > But if liberals aren't going to stand and fight tooth and nail for
    > those things, who's going to? And if they don't, don't you think it's
    > important enough to call them on it?


    I hear you on the abuse thing. I'm just not expecting to see it
    in action with Tyler, a guy that has behaved remarkably badly
    since the very beginning, a guy that has allowed his closest
    friends to buy into the deception. If he had come clean once
    it became clear that he wasn't going to beat the rap I think
    a lot of people would be willing to cut him some slack. It is
    very hard to cut slack for someone that, to this day, claims
    innocence on some pretty outrageous claims. It would also help
    a lot if he would return the gold medal. But he doesn't seem
    inclined to do that. He gets to keep the medal, but everything
    has a cost.

    If you spoke enough Dutch I bet you'd be able to google up
    stuff along the lines of what you are looking for in the
    context of Rutger Beke's case. But I wouldn't expect it in
    Tyler's case. Tyler isn't fighting the power so much as he is
    trying to beat the (corrupt and flawed) system.

    If you were making a case against the death penalty, would you
    use Rutger, the guy on death row that was cleared by DNA
    evidence? Or Tyler, the guy with blood on his hands that is
    trying to get off on a technicality? Even if the technicality
    is valid.

    Bob Schwartz
     
  11. On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:19:34 -0600, Bob Schwartz
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >If you were making a case against the death penalty, would you
    >use Rutger, the guy on death row that was cleared by DNA
    >evidence? Or Tyler, the guy with blood on his hands that is
    >trying to get off on a technicality? Even if the technicality
    >is valid.


    OK, look, rbr has concluded that TH is guilty of offing Tugboat - it
    is a little unclear to me whether it was to provide the boost, an
    accident, or to cover it all up, but we know Tug made the greatest
    sacrifice. But I didn't know it had escalated to the death penalty,
    even for Dead Doper Dogs.

    Oh by the way, aren't most people that are against the death penalty
    pretty much against it even if the person is guilty? Speaking as
    someone that is against the death penalty...

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USa)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
  12. Ken Prager

    Ken Prager Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Bob Schwartz wrote:
    > > Bill C wrote:
    > > > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > > > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > > > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > > > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.

    > >
    > > If you assume the author is a liberal then it all makes sense.
    > >
    > > Bob Schwartz

    >
    > Bob, I'm not even sure I know what a "liberal" is these days, and
    > neither do they IMO. There's an awful big chunk of territory from the
    > moderately conservative old school Kennedy liberals out to the lunatic
    > fringe. It's like trying to put a particular label on the ever changing
    > view through a kaleidoscope.
    > I am sure that I'm a whole lot closer to the "Kennedy" group than I am
    > to the clowns in, and around, the Whitehouse and conservative
    > leadership right now, but I'm just as far from Mike Moore and Jane
    > Fonda too.
    > I guess I need a new term, because I expect liberals to stand up for
    > individual rights, equality, fairness, and oppose the people in power
    > running these things over and abusing them. When I see someone who
    > claims to be liberal cheering on just the opposite it really depresses
    > me and pisses me off. For me I guess it's like a lot of reformed
    > smokers or alcoholics, who become the biggest assholes on the planet on
    > those subjects after their reformation.
    > But if liberals aren't going to stand and fight tooth and nail for
    > those things, who's going to? And if they don't, don't you think it's
    > important enough to call them on it?
    > Bill C


    The problem is using a 1-D space to describe something that is
    essentially 2-D. The 1-D space is just Liberal v. Conservative (or Left
    v. Right, if you like). However, the two axes should be economic scale
    and social scale.

    The economic scale ranges from communism (state regulated economy) to
    neo-liberalism (deregulated economy).

    The social scale ranges from authoritarian (fascism) to libertarian
    (anarchism).

    The folks over at Political Compass have it all figured out. Check it
    out at <http://www.politicalcompass.org/>. Go take their test and
    report back your numbers.


    KP
     
  13. On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:57:03 -0800, Ken Prager <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >The problem is using a 1-D space to describe something that is
    >essentially 2-D. The 1-D space is just Liberal v. Conservative (or Left
    >v. Right, if you like). However, the two axes should be economic scale
    >and social scale.
    >
    >The economic scale ranges from communism (state regulated economy) to
    >neo-liberalism (deregulated economy).
    >
    >The social scale ranges from authoritarian (fascism) to libertarian
    >(anarchism).
    >
    >The folks over at Political Compass have it all figured out. Check it
    >out at <http://www.politicalcompass.org/>. Go take their test and
    >report back your numbers.


    Depends. If you mean they have a better set of labels, perhaps. If you
    mean deciding how people vote or are oriented for the major issues,
    no, not in countries where there aren't stark choices or differences
    among the candidates.

    Labels simply don't work well. Some people choose their candidate
    first, then select that party, a whole slew of people are focused on
    one or a few issues and are disaffected when those are not aligned per
    their desires in one party (for instance, it is entirely possible to
    be both antiabortion and pro the ecology movement - its even possible,
    contrary to many in my church, to be antiabortion and pro women's
    rights). Others pretty much vote how their parents voted or how those
    in their strongest social organization (church, work, whatever) vote.
    And some vote all over the map and lie to the pollsters. I like the
    last group, assuming their choices weren't random.

    Labels ultimately are just another version of wanting to pay more
    attention to who is saying something than what is said. It always
    takes a lot less energy to do the first than the second.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USa)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
  14. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Ken Prager wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Bob Schwartz wrote:
    > > > Bill C wrote:
    > > > > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > > > > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > > > > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > > > > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.
    > > >
    > > > If you assume the author is a liberal then it all makes sense.
    > > >
    > > > Bob Schwartz

    > >
    > > Bob, I'm not even sure I know what a "liberal" is these days, and
    > > neither do they IMO. There's an awful big chunk of territory from the
    > > moderately conservative old school Kennedy liberals out to the lunatic
    > > fringe. It's like trying to put a particular label on the ever changing
    > > view through a kaleidoscope.
    > > I am sure that I'm a whole lot closer to the "Kennedy" group than I am
    > > to the clowns in, and around, the Whitehouse and conservative
    > > leadership right now, but I'm just as far from Mike Moore and Jane
    > > Fonda too.
    > > I guess I need a new term, because I expect liberals to stand up for
    > > individual rights, equality, fairness, and oppose the people in power
    > > running these things over and abusing them. When I see someone who
    > > claims to be liberal cheering on just the opposite it really depresses
    > > me and pisses me off. For me I guess it's like a lot of reformed
    > > smokers or alcoholics, who become the biggest assholes on the planet on
    > > those subjects after their reformation.
    > > But if liberals aren't going to stand and fight tooth and nail for
    > > those things, who's going to? And if they don't, don't you think it's
    > > important enough to call them on it?
    > > Bill C

    >
    > The problem is using a 1-D space to describe something that is
    > essentially 2-D. The 1-D space is just Liberal v. Conservative (or Left
    > v. Right, if you like). However, the two axes should be economic scale
    > and social scale.
    >
    > The economic scale ranges from communism (state regulated economy) to
    > neo-liberalism (deregulated economy).
    >
    > The social scale ranges from authoritarian (fascism) to libertarian
    > (anarchism).
    >
    > The folks over at Political Compass have it all figured out. Check it
    > out at <http://www.politicalcompass.org/>. Go take their test and
    > report back your numbers.
    >
    >
    > KP

    Hi Ken

    Your political compass
    Economic Left/Right: -1.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36
    By that I come out slightly libertarian left.
    Not a real shock as I tend to be all over the map depending on the
    issue, candidate, and current situation.
    Bill C
     
  15. That is taken completely out of context.

    -Nathan Schultz
    Author of original piece

    Jim Flom wrote:
    > "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote ...
    > >
    > > Good read JT, but nothing about the, IMO, brutally unfair, biased, and
    > > personality/ego driven system of going after dopers. J. Edgar Hoover
    > > was a champion of civil liberties and individual rights compared to
    > > Dick Pound and the UCI IMO.

    >
    > "Good, now that I've done the really manly thing and trashed someone on the
    > Internet, I feel much better."
    > ...says it all...
    >
    > JF
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>,
    Bob Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Bill C wrote:
    > > I guess I need a new term, because I expect liberals to stand up for
    > > individual rights, equality, fairness, and oppose the people in power
    > > running these things over and abusing them. When I see someone who
    > > claims to be liberal cheering on just the opposite it really depresses
    > > me and pisses me off. For me I guess it's like a lot of reformed
    > > smokers or alcoholics, who become the biggest assholes on the planet on
    > > those subjects after their reformation.
    > > But if liberals aren't going to stand and fight tooth and nail for
    > > those things, who's going to? And if they don't, don't you think it's
    > > important enough to call them on it?

    >
    > I hear you on the abuse thing. I'm just not expecting to see it
    > in action with Tyler, a guy that has behaved remarkably badly
    > since the very beginning, a guy that has allowed his closest
    > friends to buy into the deception. If he had come clean once
    > it became clear that he wasn't going to beat the rap I think
    > a lot of people would be willing to cut him some slack. It is
    > very hard to cut slack for someone that, to this day, claims
    > innocence on some pretty outrageous claims. It would also help
    > a lot if he would return the gold medal. But he doesn't seem
    > inclined to do that. He gets to keep the medal, but everything
    > has a cost.
    >
    > If you spoke enough Dutch I bet you'd be able to google up
    > stuff along the lines of what you are looking for in the
    > context of Rutger Beke's case. But I wouldn't expect it in
    > Tyler's case. Tyler isn't fighting the power so much as he is
    > trying to beat the (corrupt and flawed) system.
    >
    > If you were making a case against the death penalty, would you
    > use Rutger, the guy on death row that was cleared by DNA
    > evidence? Or Tyler, the guy with blood on his hands that is
    > trying to get off on a technicality? Even if the technicality
    > is valid.


    Do not disagree with most of this. I disagree when you
    disparage technicalities, because the execution in court
    of our rights (due process, face your accusers, illegal
    search and seizure, ...) depends exactly on
    technicalities.

    --
    Michael Press
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>,
    Ken Prager <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The problem is using a 1-D space to describe something that is
    > essentially 2-D. The 1-D space is just Liberal v. Conservative (or Left
    > v. Right, if you like). However, the two axes should be economic scale
    > and social scale.
    >
    > The economic scale ranges from communism (state regulated economy) to
    > neo-liberalism (deregulated economy).
    >
    > The social scale ranges from authoritarian (fascism) to libertarian
    > (anarchism).
    >
    > The folks over at Political Compass have it all figured out. Check it
    > out at <http://www.politicalcompass.org/>. Go take their test and
    > report back your numbers.


    The answers to the questions are on a 1-D scale. This kind
    of assessment does not account for those who disagree with
    the questions. The questions tell me that I strongly
    disagree with the posers. I am not even on their map.

    --
    Michael Press
     
  18. bob sullivan

    bob sullivan Guest

    Curtis L. Russell wrote:
    > Depends. If you mean they have a better set of labels, perhaps. If you
    > mean deciding how people vote or are oriented for the major issues,
    > no, not in countries where there aren't stark choices or differences
    > among the candidates.
    >
    > Labels simply don't work well. Some people choose their candidate
    > first, then select that party, a whole slew of people are focused on
    > one or a few issues and are disaffected when those are not aligned per
    > their desires in one party (for instance, it is entirely possible to
    > be both antiabortion and pro the ecology movement - its even possible,
    > contrary to many in my church, to be antiabortion and pro women's
    > rights). Others pretty much vote how their parents voted or how those
    > in their strongest social organization (church, work, whatever) vote.
    > And some vote all over the map and lie to the pollsters. I like the
    > last group, assuming their choices weren't random.
    >
    > Labels ultimately are just another version of wanting to pay more
    > attention to who is saying something than what is said. It always
    > takes a lot less energy to do the first than the second.
    >
    > Curtis L. Russell
    > Odenton, MD (USa)
    > Just someone on two wheels...


    Well stated, Curtis L. Russell of Odenton, MD! I wonder if I agree with
    you because you live so close to me, geographically. ;)

    The term 'liberal', in particular, has lost much of its positive
    original meaning, at least in American political discourse. It's
    used as a slam, intended to conjure up images of tree-hugging
    hippies who abort babies and confiscate guns from law-abiding
    citizens at the slightest provocation. For some reason, the term
    'conservative' has fared much better in the past 20 years. You
    never hear a TV ad slamming a candidate for having been an
    'unapologetic conservative'...

    The people who bandy these labels about are well aware that there
    are huge segments of the population who don't fit into their
    convenient little categories (police officers who are 'conservative'
    on all issues except gun control, for example). But they continue
    to use them because voters insist on being lazy and not looking
    beyond the labels.

    ~bob sullivan
    columbia, md (usa)
     
  19. Bill C

    Bill C Guest

    Michael Press wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Ken Prager <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > The problem is using a 1-D space to describe something that is
    > > essentially 2-D. The 1-D space is just Liberal v. Conservative (or Left
    > > v. Right, if you like). However, the two axes should be economic scale
    > > and social scale.
    > >
    > > The economic scale ranges from communism (state regulated economy) to
    > > neo-liberalism (deregulated economy).
    > >
    > > The social scale ranges from authoritarian (fascism) to libertarian
    > > (anarchism).
    > >
    > > The folks over at Political Compass have it all figured out. Check it
    > > out at <http://www.politicalcompass.org/>. Go take their test and
    > > report back your numbers.

    >
    > The answers to the questions are on a 1-D scale. This kind
    > of assessment does not account for those who disagree with
    > the questions. The questions tell me that I strongly
    > disagree with the posers. I am not even on their map.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Press


    I have yet to find any of these type surveys that offer answers to the
    questions that I'm totally comfortable with so I go with the
    best/closest aproximation. It ends up being like that old bit about "If
    you stick one hand in boiling water, and one in freezing, does that
    mean you're comfortable?" In the last one I ended up as a Green Party
    Republican type. These things only seem to work well for people who
    really do live inside the little box that the people from the other
    little box tell them to.
    Bill C
     
  20. Jim Flom

    Jim Flom Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > That is taken completely out of context.
    >
    > -Nathan Schultz
    > Author of original piece


    The fact that you said it all indicates that you know you would've done
    better by talking to Tyler straight up and to his face.

    JF
     
Loading...
Loading...