Rebellin positive at olympics
Comments
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:I don't think the "looks guilty" thing is very fair... How do you want him to look after 200km in crazy heat and humidity to lose out in a sprint?
It is light-hearted and not meant seriously...blimey!Contador is the Greatest0 -
Sorry, my humour filter failed me.
The words i'm looking for are "hedunnit""In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
cougie wrote:Dennis - do you follow the twitters of Lance ? Given that he talks about so much - why hasnt he mentioned Rebellin or Schumachers misdemeanours ? You think he'd be a bit annoyed with people bringing the sport into disrepute ?
No, don't follow Lance on twitter. Have never even been "on" twitter. If that's the proper word? :oops:
Not a clue as to" .....why hasn't he mentioned.....". He probably doesn't know any more about it than you or I.
"You'd think he'd be a bit annoyed.....". Maybe he is. I don't know. Maybe those two were friends of his. What's he supposed to say? If they were friends of yours, what would you do or say? He's not their spokesman.
Dennis Noward0 -
le patron wrote:dennisn wrote:
And I will continue to make that point. Does that explain why I "type essentially the same thing every time"?
Dennis Noward
Sort of, but not on here. It's getting a bit tiresome. Aren’t there media or web 2.0 discussion boards for that sort of thing ? Maybe start one (or a seperate thread on here in cake stop or whetever it's called) if you are that bothered about people speculating, forming opinions, criticising and suggesting solutions on the internet. Lead the charge, actually do something about it rather than b*itch all the time.
Or I can post a link to a football forum and you can get make the same points there.
Nothing against you at all, but I think you are banging your head against a brick wall here.
Just look upon myself as the guy who reminds you that neither you nor I know it all.
Maybe I'm sort of like the slave who rode beside the all conquering hero as his chariot entered Rome, to the cheers of the people. He kept whispering in the heros ear, "all fame is fleeting"(or something along those lines). At least that's how I heard the story.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:le patron wrote:
Just look upon myself as the guy who reminds you that neither you nor I know it all.
Maybe I'm sort of like the slave who rode beside the all conquering hero as his chariot entered Rome, to the cheers of the people. He kept whispering in the heros ear, "all fame is fleeting"(or something along those lines). At least that's how I heard the story.
Dennis Noward
Also translated as "Thus are the mighty fallen"
Sorry, couldn't help myself
Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
dennisn wrote:"You'd think he'd be a bit annoyed.....". Maybe he is. I don't know. Maybe those two were friends of his. What's he supposed to say? If they were friends of yours, what would you do or say? He's not their spokesman.
If a friend of yours broke the law and put your job at risk doing it, would you have an opinion on it? Or would you just shrug and go "he's my friend"Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
If a teammate of mine was found doping, I'd be bloody livid.
The silence thing takes me back to the olden days of Omerta.0 -
iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:"You'd think he'd be a bit annoyed.....". Maybe he is. I don't know. Maybe those two were friends of his. What's he supposed to say? If they were friends of yours, what would you do or say? He's not their spokesman.
If a friend of yours broke the law and put your job at risk doing it, would you have an opinion on it? Or would you just shrug and go "he's my friend"
How does my friend, sitting next to me at work, doing drugs, and getting fired for it put my job at risk? It only makes me look that much better(sadly, sort of). An opinion, sure,
he was my friend but also an idiot. I would not, however, go spouting off about it to everyone. I'm sure that loss of livelyhood is more than enough punishment. What kind of person would go around talking about a friend(even a "guilty of a crime" friend) like that.
It's not what friends are for.
Dennis Noward0 -
What if it was ENRON and all your bent mates were getting huge bonuses for being sharks, and you the nice guy was just bumbling along.... then the whole sorry thing crashed down because of their greed, taking your K401a (?) along with them? Would you spout off then?___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
dennisn wrote:How does my friend, sitting next to me at work, doing drugs, and getting fired for it put my job at risk?
Well personally I'd be a little upset with him if he caused my company to fold.0 -
dennisn wrote:How does my friend, sitting next to me at work, doing drugs, and getting fired for it put my job at risk? It only makes me look that much better(sadly, sort of).
Well - if that friend is a senior member of your company - and his firing causes your customers to lose faith in the company and take their business and/or sponsorship elsewhere, causing the collapse of your company and the subsequent loss of YOUR job, then YES - it CAN make a difference what he does.
However - if you work at McDonald's - I suspect that your job is safe no matter what your friend does.0 -
Pokerface wrote:dennisn wrote:How does my friend, sitting next to me at work, doing drugs, and getting fired for it put my job at risk? It only makes me look that much better(sadly, sort of).
Well - if that friend is a senior member of your company - and his firing causes your customers to lose faith in the company and take their business and/or sponsorship elsewhere, causing the collapse of your company and the subsequent loss of YOUR job, then YES - it CAN make a difference what he does.
I don't see it that way. Cycling has had more than it's fair share of doping scandals. Riders have come and gone. Teams have come and gone, Races have come and gone.
Yet cycling as a sport is as popular as ever, if not more so. Of course, this is going to cause debate in itself, with a few people seeming to feel that cycling's demise is just around the corner. In sort of a strange way losing a few riders to drug testing actually opens UP the job market in the pro ranks for people who are up and coming.
As far as companies and the like going under because of drug use by a few people, I would have to say, show me the numbers and names. From top to bottom, in most companies, people come and go for a variety of reasons(some even criminal) yet the company usually survives. Hell, presidents and prime ministers get shot and killed yet
the country goes on. No one is that important that the world stops without them. Well, maybe Ayn Rands John Galt. He could do it.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:I don't see it that way. Cycling has had more than it's fair share of doping scandals. Riders have come and gone. Teams have come and gone, Races have come and gone.
Yet cycling as a sport is as popular as ever, if not more so.
Cycling is getting poorer. Salaries are being cut and this started before the financial crisis. If Astana folded, do you think they'd get a new sponsor? Probably not and do you wonder why that might be?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
calvjones wrote:So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not
One of my favorite books. Not that I try and live my life like that but loved the book. Great story. Have you read it? What did you think?
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:Pokerface wrote:dennisn wrote:How does my friend, sitting next to me at work, doing drugs, and getting fired for it put my job at risk? It only makes me look that much better(sadly, sort of).
Well - if that friend is a senior member of your company - and his firing causes your customers to lose faith in the company and take their business and/or sponsorship elsewhere, causing the collapse of your company and the subsequent loss of YOUR job, then YES - it CAN make a difference what he does.
I don't see it that way. As far as companies and the like going under because of drug use by a few people, I would have to say, show me the numbers and names.
Dennis Noward
LA's former team, Discovery Channel.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/10/armstr ... 0tour.html0 -
dennisn wrote:calvjones wrote:So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not
One of my favorite books. Not that I try and live my life like that but loved the book. Great story. Have you read it? What did you think?
Dennis Noward
No, a couple of her essays were enough to finish me off! I think you'd find me on the Chomsky/Vonnegut side of that particular literary/philosophical divide.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
calvjones wrote:dennisn wrote:calvjones wrote:So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not
One of my favorite books. Not that I try and live my life like that but loved the book. Great story. Have you read it? What did you think?
Dennis Noward
No, a couple of her essays were enough to finish me off! I think you'd find me on the Chomsky/Vonnegut side of that particular literary/philosophical divide.
Just a good read for me. Not on any "side". Although she does present compelling arguments.0 -
Oh, come on guys! Everybody knew where this was going a page ago.
Do not feed the troll!0 -
I see no trolls ? :?:0
-
calvjones wrote:So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not
I was about to make a similar comment!
One problem with the sort of right-wing 'libertarianism' inspired by the likes of Rand and the dream of dismantling 'the state' (other than that part which protects private and corporate wealth, of course) is that taking power out of the hands of 'the government' also takes power out of the hands of the people as well, in so far as government is democratically elected. In turn such a system would inevitably place even greater power into the hands of powerful non-elected bodies, especially corporations. Given this so-called 'libertarianism' has to be the surest pathway to corporate fascism and the ultimate 'closed society' that has ever been dreamed up. (The 'closed society' being a term used by Karl Popper to describe a society where those in charge cannot be deposed by democratic means).
Anything which places even greater power into the hands of corporations should be of concern to everyone. Even with the checks and controls currently imposed on businesses by democratically elected governments we already live in a world of 14p per hour sweatshops and £25 million 'bonus' payments to senior executives. Oh, and let's not forget that the rules of the 'free market' only apply to the likes of you and me, especially when these 'rules' justify forcing down wage rates or abolishing workers rights. On the other hand the corporations see nothing wrong with going to 'the state' expecting 'free handouts' and 'rewards for failure'. As Gore Vidal wrote over 20 years ago, the USA is one of the most ‘socialist’ countries in the world, but their particular form of 'socialism' only benefits the rich.
Unfortunately the sort of views argued for by the likes of Rand are no longer the preserve of cranks and appear to be gaining ever-more ground, especially in the USA where the cult of individualism and the myth of the meritocratic society have the strongest grip.
Such views are also encouraged by the 'Randist' anti-egalitarian propaganda Americans are bombarded with. Just look at the way the idea of 'socialised' health care is attacked in the US. (Not long ago the propaganda was less subtle than it is now, as with that propaganda film attacking 'socialised' health care which was paid for by American doctors and which Michael Moore used in 'Sicko').
A typical rand view is that the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
('Look after number one', in other words).
I had long suspected Dennis' views lent towards the loony 'libertarian' right from the way he defends Armstrong, surely a perfect model of 'look after number one', anti-egalitarian individualism. 0 -
Hmmm. In America, it seems, many also believe that creationists present 'compelling arguments'.dennisn wrote:[Rand] does present compelling arguments.
I sometimes think that relativism has such a grip in the US largely because arguing 'my truth is as good as yours' is the only way a whole range of cranks from libertarians and creationists to disciples of Lance Armstrong can defend their views and feel justified in ignoring all the evidence that shows their beliefs are flawed or false.
P.s. for that clip from 'Sicko' see the following, from about 5.50 in. Scary! No wonder so many Americans 'think' as they do!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEc7yPFw ... D0&index=30 -
This part of the forum should be renamed Pro Doping as all you people like talking about is the doping incidents rather than the multitude of other topics reagarding pro racing. Really quite sad actually.
Also, many of you love attacking other people, rubiishing their opinions and basically generally going off topic. Maybe there should be another section on the forum entitled: I like to argue. There you can fight it out about any general topic that takes your fancy rather than clogging up threads with your drivel.Contador is the Greatest0 -
You seem to think that pro cycling goes on in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the world. I would argue that much of the 'off topic' debate that goes on actually throws a lot of light onto the motivations and so on of those involved in the sport.frenchfighter wrote:many of you love attacking other people, rubiishing their opinions and basically generally going off topic.0 -
aurelio wrote:
You seem to think that pro cycling goes on in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the world. I would argue that much of the 'off topic' debate that goes on actually throws a lot of light onto the motivations and so on of those involved in the sport.frenchfighter wrote:many of you love attacking other people, rubiishing their opinions and basically generally going off topic.
Does pro cycling not go on in a vacuum? I thought it was in a great big Dyson
Maybe some people want to actually discuss bikes and riders and not chemicals?
I'm not saying that the drug situation should be swept under the carpet but some people seem a little preoccupied by it.0 -
aurelio wrote:calvjones wrote:So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not
I was about to make a similar comment!
One problem with the sort of right-wing 'libertarianism' inspired by the likes of Rand and the dream of dismantling 'the state' (other than that part which protects private and corporate wealth, of course) is that taking power out of the hands of 'the government' also takes power out of the hands of the people as well, in so far as government is democratically elected. In turn such a system would inevitably place even greater power into the hands of powerful non-elected bodies, especially corporations. As such so-called 'libertarianism' has to be the surest pathway to corporate fascism and the ultimate 'closed society' that has ever been dreamed up. (The 'closed society' being a term used by Karl Popper to describe a society where those in charge cannot be deposed by democratic means).
Anything which places even greater power into the hands of corporations should be of concern to everyone, especially given that, even with the checks and controls currently imposed on businesses by democratically elected governments, we already live in a world of 14p per hour sweatshops and £25 million 'bonus' payments to senior executives. Oh, and let's not forget that the rules of the 'free market' only apply to the likes of you and me, especially when these 'rules' justify forcing down wage rates or abolishing workers rights. On the other hand the corporations see nothing wrong with going to 'the state' expecting 'handouts' and 'rewards for failure'. As Gore Vidal wrote over 20 years ago, the USA is one of the most ‘socialist’ countries in the world, but that 'socialism' only benefits the rich.
Unfortunately the sort of views argued for by the likes of Rand are no longer the preserve of crackpots and cranks and appear to be gaining ever-more ground, especially in the USA where the cult of individualism and the myth of the meritocratic society have the strongest grip.
Americans are also constantly bombarded with 'Randist' anti-egalitarian propaganda. Just look at the way the idea of 'socialised' health care is attacked. (Not long ago the propaganda was less subtle than it is now, as with that propaganda film attacking 'socialised' health care, and paid for by American doctors, that Michael Moore used in 'Sicko').
A typical rand view is that the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
('Look after number one', in other words).
I had long suspected Dennis' views lent towards the loony 'libertarian' right from the way he defends Armstrong, surely a perfect model of 'look after number one', anti-egalitarian individualism.
Let's clarify this a bit. I never said I bought into the "Rand" ideal. I made an off the cuff comment about how only John Galt could stop the(motor of the) world. Kind of in reference to the idea that one or two or even three people could not destroy cycling.
It was a great work of FICTION that I really enjoyed. Not any agenda that I push. I did get a kick out of her characterization of Robin Hood as the worst example of good that has ever been pushed on people. You know, he stole from the rich..... She thought that was just about the worst thing anyone could do. Made no sense in her mind. The poor aren't capable of making money work for them. All they will do is squander it. But I rant on. Still a great novel.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:calvjones wrote:So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not
I was about to make a similar comment!
One problem with the sort of right-wing 'libertarianism' inspired by the likes of Rand and the dream of dismantling 'the state' (other than that part which protects private and corporate wealth, of course) is that taking power out of the hands of 'the government' also takes power out of the hands of the people as well, in so far as government is democratically elected. In turn such a system would inevitably place even greater power into the hands of powerful non-elected bodies, especially corporations. As such so-called 'libertarianism' has to be the surest pathway to corporate fascism and the ultimate 'closed society' that has ever been dreamed up. (The 'closed society' being a term used by Karl Popper to describe a society where those in charge cannot be deposed by democratic means).
Anything which places even greater power into the hands of corporations should be of concern to everyone, especially given that, even with the checks and controls currently imposed on businesses by democratically elected governments, we already live in a world of 14p per hour sweatshops and £25 million 'bonus' payments to senior executives. Oh, and let's not forget that the rules of the 'free market' only apply to the likes of you and me, especially when these 'rules' justify forcing down wage rates or abolishing workers rights. On the other hand the corporations see nothing wrong with going to 'the state' expecting 'handouts' and 'rewards for failure'. As Gore Vidal wrote over 20 years ago, the USA is one of the most ‘socialist’ countries in the world, but that 'socialism' only benefits the rich.
Unfortunately the sort of views argued for by the likes of Rand are no longer the preserve of crackpots and cranks and appear to be gaining ever-more ground, especially in the USA where the cult of individualism and the myth of the meritocratic society have the strongest grip.
Americans are also constantly bombarded with 'Randist' anti-egalitarian propaganda. Just look at the way the idea of 'socialised' health care is attacked. (Not long ago the propaganda was less subtle than it is now, as with that propaganda film attacking 'socialised' health care, and paid for by American doctors, that Michael Moore used in 'Sicko').
A typical rand view is that the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
('Look after number one', in other words).
I had long suspected Dennis' views lent towards the loony 'libertarian' right from the way he defends Armstrong, surely a perfect model of 'look after number one', anti-egalitarian individualism.
Let's clarify this a bit. I never said I bought into the "Rand" ideal. I made an off the cuff comment about how only John Galt could stop the(motor of the) world. Kind of in reference to the idea that one or two or even three people could not destroy cycling.
It was a great work of FICTION that I really enjoyed. Not any agenda that I push. I did get a kick out of her characterization of Robin Hood as the worst example of good that has ever been pushed on people. You know, he stole from the rich..... She thought that was just about the worst thing anyone could do. Made no sense in her mind. The poor aren't capable of making money work for them. All they will do is squander it. But I rant on. Still a great novel.
Dennis Noward
Is this still Bike Radar.....0 -
The Prodigy wrote:dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:calvjones wrote:So when you're not castigating us on the forum you're reading Ayn Rand... I now understand why you think we have no right to comment on others' behaviour.
How is that arch-Capitalism stuff going for you guys by the way?
Oh. Sorry to hear that. Not
I was about to make a similar comment!
One problem with the sort of right-wing 'libertarianism' inspired by the likes of Rand and the dream of dismantling 'the state' (other than that part which protects private and corporate wealth, of course) is that taking power out of the hands of 'the government' also takes power out of the hands of the people as well, in so far as government is democratically elected. In turn such a system would inevitably place even greater power into the hands of powerful non-elected bodies, especially corporations. As such so-called 'libertarianism' has to be the surest pathway to corporate fascism and the ultimate 'closed society' that has ever been dreamed up. (The 'closed society' being a term used by Karl Popper to describe a society where those in charge cannot be deposed by democratic means).
Anything which places even greater power into the hands of corporations should be of concern to everyone, especially given that, even with the checks and controls currently imposed on businesses by democratically elected governments, we already live in a world of 14p per hour sweatshops and £25 million 'bonus' payments to senior executives. Oh, and let's not forget that the rules of the 'free market' only apply to the likes of you and me, especially when these 'rules' justify forcing down wage rates or abolishing workers rights. On the other hand the corporations see nothing wrong with going to 'the state' expecting 'handouts' and 'rewards for failure'. As Gore Vidal wrote over 20 years ago, the USA is one of the most ‘socialist’ countries in the world, but that 'socialism' only benefits the rich.
Unfortunately the sort of views argued for by the likes of Rand are no longer the preserve of crackpots and cranks and appear to be gaining ever-more ground, especially in the USA where the cult of individualism and the myth of the meritocratic society have the strongest grip.
Americans are also constantly bombarded with 'Randist' anti-egalitarian propaganda. Just look at the way the idea of 'socialised' health care is attacked. (Not long ago the propaganda was less subtle than it is now, as with that propaganda film attacking 'socialised' health care, and paid for by American doctors, that Michael Moore used in 'Sicko').
A typical rand view is that the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
('Look after number one', in other words).
I had long suspected Dennis' views lent towards the loony 'libertarian' right from the way he defends Armstrong, surely a perfect model of 'look after number one', anti-egalitarian individualism.
Let's clarify this a bit. I never said I bought into the "Rand" ideal. I made an off the cuff comment about how only John Galt could stop the(motor of the) world. Kind of in reference to the idea that one or two or even three people could not destroy cycling.
It was a great work of FICTION that I really enjoyed. Not any agenda that I push. I did get a kick out of her characterization of Robin Hood as the worst example of good that has ever been pushed on people. You know, he stole from the rich..... She thought that was just about the worst thing anyone could do. Made no sense in her mind. The poor aren't capable of making money work for them. All they will do is squander it. But I rant on. Still a great novel.
Dennis Noward
Is this still Bike Radar.....
It is hard to tell at times. My biggest hint is the title at the top of the page.
Dennis Noward0 -
Dennis - I always had you down as a post-modernist 0
-
johnfinch wrote:Dennis - I always had you down as a post-modernist
To be truthful I had to read the definition of post-modernist on Wikipedia and even after that I still wasn't sure what you were trying to say. Although I came away with the idea that IF I was one, that it must have been my steel bike that gave me away.
Something like that.
Dennis Noward0
