Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

DaveyL

Maybe dennisn is actually Pozzatto. "Only God can be my judge"...

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I think you're mistaking evidence for truth. Or you think that because someone says something that it's truth. Evidence is everywhere out there. Truth, well, good luck in finding very much of that. :roll: :roll:

If it got to a court, and a guilty verdict was returned, you wouldn't accept it, would you Dennis?

Why would you think I wouldn't accept it? I've never said I thought that anyone was guilty or innocent. Never even said that I cared whether "they" were or not. My whole point all along has been that YOU don't know what you think you know about all of this. It's simply speculation on most everyones part yet everyone is demanding justice. Almost like a lynch mob. You've all convinced yourselves that you know it all and on that basis you want to "Hang 'em High". I'm against that sort of thinking. You've made more(or less) of ME than there is. Just like you've made more (or less) of any of, at the very least, a couple dozen riders, doctors, team members, and God knows who else.

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

I think you're mistaking evidence for truth. Or you think that because someone says something that it's truth. Evidence is everywhere out there. Truth, well, good luck in finding very much of that. :roll: :roll:

:roll:

Dennisn =



I think you need your easy rider biker mate to give you both barrels:




8)

iainf72

Ok Dennis. Here's what I know

Floyd Landis said Lance doped
Greg Lemond said Lance admitted using EPO
Besty Andreau said she heard Lance confess to doping
EPO was found in urine attributed to Lance
Lance worked with Dr Ferrari
Lance paid the UCI a large amount of money and then gave a sworn statement saying it was a lot less

Care to dispute any of these things I know?

BikingBernie

dennisn wrote:

Evidence is everywhere out there. Truth, well, good luck in finding very much of that.

Much of what Dennis says appears to reflect a strongly relativistic outlook, holding that 'truth' is unobtainable or forever uncertain, no matter how much evidence is gathered in support of a particular position. In the US such relativism often has strong 'libertarian' overtones, with the 'absolutism' of truth being regarded as some sort of tyranny over-riding the 'freedom' of the individual to think as they please. Such relativism also allows religious fundamentalism in the US to thrive, impermeable to the advances of science and rational thought, and allows US foreign policy to reign free of the restrictions that might be placed upon it by international law and even moral concerns. (Both of which are, of course, regarded as being relative and not absolute).

It has been argued that such views, irrational as they often are, have become almost ubiquitous in the USA, and Dennis can't really be blamed for the results of a 'conditioning' process that has probably influenced his 'thinking' for decades. Compare what Dennis says with, for example, the following from the opening of Allan Bloom's 1987 book 'The closing of the American mind':

"There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative...

The relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it. They have all been equipped with this framework early on, and it is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society."

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Ok Dennis. Here's what I know

Floyd Landis said Lance doped
Greg Lemond said Lance admitted using EPO
Besty Andreau said she heard Lance confess to doping
EPO was found in urine attributed to Lance
Lance worked with Dr Ferrari
Lance paid the UCI a large amount of money and then gave a sworn statement saying it was a lot less

Care to dispute any of these things I know?

No, not at all. You THINK you know what's going on and you WANT to believe all the
Internet news that you have read on this subject. You seem to want justice for wrongs that you claim are LA's doing, yet I still question your real motivations for wanting this justice to happen. I simply don't believe your motives are as noble as yourself, and others, claim. Just reading some of the posts I detect jealousy, envy, hatred. NO, you, and others, as noble searchers of the truth? I don't buy it. Not at all. And that's why I always chime in on this subject. As for the riders who dope. If you're p*issing in the bed
you'll more than likely get wet and smelly. Not my problem unless I'm the one p*ssing. Now, that's what I know, or at least THINK I know.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

No, not at all. You THINK you know what's going on and you WANT to believe all the
Internet news that you have read on this subject. You seem to want justice for wrongs that you claim are LA's doing, yet I still question your real motivations for wanting this justice to happen. I simply don't believe your motives are as noble as yourself, and others, claim. Just reading some of the posts I detect jealousy, envy, hatred. NO, you, and others, as noble searchers of the truth? I don't buy it. Not at all. And that's why I always chime in on this subject. As for the riders who dope. If you're p*issing in the bed
you'll more than likely going to get wet and smelly. Not my problem unless I'm the one p*ssing. Now, that's what I know, or at least THINK I know.

What am I jealous of exactly Dennis? Saying someone is jealous is the retreat of someone with no argument I'm afraid.

Unlike you, I have an interest in pro cycling and if riders have cheated, I would like to see justice served. Lance is not above or below this as far as I'm concerned.

BikingBernie

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Dennisn =

Good one, that's almost exactly how I pictured Dennis as well, especially when Hopper goes off on one of his 'stream of consciousness' monologues.

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Dennisn =

Good one, that's almost exactly how I pictured Dennis as well, especially when Hopper goes off on one of his 'stream of consciousness' monologues.

I can't even come close to growing a beard like that. I did, however, on a few occasions,
smoke some dope that made me babble on like he did in the movie.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No, not at all. You THINK you know what's going on and you WANT to believe all the
Internet news that you have read on this subject. You seem to want justice for wrongs that you claim are LA's doing, yet I still question your real motivations for wanting this justice to happen. I simply don't believe your motives are as noble as yourself, and others, claim. Just reading some of the posts I detect jealousy, envy, hatred. NO, you, and others, as noble searchers of the truth? I don't buy it. Not at all. And that's why I always chime in on this subject. As for the riders who dope. If you're p*issing in the bed
you'll more than likely going to get wet and smelly. Not my problem unless I'm the one p*ssing. Now, that's what I know, or at least THINK I know.

What am I jealous of exactly Dennis? Saying someone is jealous is the retreat of someone with no argument I'm afraid.

Unlike you, I have an interest in pro cycling and if riders have cheated, I would like to see justice served. Lance is not above or below this as far as I'm concerned.

All I'm saying is that if YOU look deep enough I think you'll find that your noble ideal's
are not pure as you think they are.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No, not at all. You THINK you know what's going on and you WANT to believe all the
Internet news that you have read on this subject. You seem to want justice for wrongs that you claim are LA's doing, yet I still question your real motivations for wanting this justice to happen. I simply don't believe your motives are as noble as yourself, and others, claim. Just reading some of the posts I detect jealousy, envy, hatred. NO, you, and others, as noble searchers of the truth? I don't buy it. Not at all. And that's why I always chime in on this subject. As for the riders who dope. If you're p*issing in the bed
you'll more than likely going to get wet and smelly. Not my problem unless I'm the one p*ssing. Now, that's what I know, or at least THINK I know.

What am I jealous of exactly Dennis? Saying someone is jealous is the retreat of someone with no argument I'm afraid.

Unlike you, I have an interest in pro cycling and if riders have cheated, I would like to see justice served. Lance is not above or below this as far as I'm concerned.

All I'm saying is that if YOU look deep enough I think you'll find that your noble ideal's
are not pure as you think they are. And neither are mine. Or anyones.

ratsbeyfus

Calm down Dennis, you're starting to repeat yourself!

ratsbeyfus

BikingBernie wrote:

Much of what Dennis says appears to reflect a strongly relativistic outlook, holding that 'truth' is unobtainable or forever uncertain, no matter how much evidence is gathered in support of a particular position. In the US such relativism often has strong 'libertarian' overtones, with the 'absolutism' of truth being regarded as some sort of tyranny over-riding the 'freedom' of the individual to think as they please.

The horror! The horror!

bazbadger

BikingBernie wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Evidence is everywhere out there. Truth, well, good luck in finding very much of that.

Much of what Dennis says appears to reflect a strongly relativistic outlook, holding that 'truth' is unobtainable or forever uncertain, no matter how much evidence is gathered in support of a particular position. In the US such relativism often has strong 'libertarian' overtones, with the 'absolutism' of truth being regarded as some sort of tyranny over-riding the 'freedom' of the individual to think as they please. Such relativism also allows religious fundamentalism in the US to thrive, impermeable to the advances of science and rational thought, and allows US foreign policy to reign free of the restrictions that might be placed upon it by international law and even moral concerns. (Both of which are, of course, regarded as being relative and not absolute).

It has been argued that such views, irrational as they often are, have become almost ubiquitous in the USA, and Dennis can't really be blamed for the results of a 'conditioning' process that has probably influenced his 'thinking' for decades. Compare what Dennis says with, for example, the following from the opening of Allan Bloom's 1987 book 'The closing of the American mind':

"There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative...

The relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it. They have all been equipped with this framework early on, and it is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society."

Nice essay, but a tad patronising.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

All I'm saying is that if YOU look deep enough I think you'll find that your noble ideal's
are not pure as you think they are. And neither are mine. Or anyones.

I never said my ideas were noble.

Here's an example for you. I'll use cyclists you've heard of. I believe Armstrong doped and he should face a sanction for it. I don't like Lance. I believe George Hincapie doped in his career and should face a sanction. I'm a big fan of Georges.

Does that make sense to you?

dulldave

mididoctors wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

The only problem is, if Landis is telling the truth, then there are going to be a lot of gloating frenchman out there - can we stomach that??

I think all things considered I prefer gloating French to gloating Americans

I know we all jest and this ain't aimed at you in particular but can we get past the nationality thing....

I'm guilty of anti-american bias myself but frankly its not really about that anymore for me..

thou I think it is part of the focus of LA in the general scheme of things.. I will confess i didn't like him in 1999 for winning because he was a big headed Texan git.. that bias must have rolled into later opinions I formed of him

however after the final votes are in and weighing it all up I reckon he is the number one baddest apple in barrel for a host of reasons IMO but being a Texan isn't one of them..

if the 7 time tour winning doping cheat had come from France he would need to go and all... lets not forget parts of the french cycling establishment effectively colluded with LA and JB not to mention the myriad of nations represented in the peloton so there is plenty of blame to go round if you want to tar brush entire nations


nobody looks good in hindsight if only because so few tried to do anything about it and those that did were not effective enough to stop it coming to this

+1

paulcuthbert wrote:

French people should never gloat about ousting cheaters considering their entry into the World Cup this year came by just that!

Harold Shipman is British so by your logic you're not allowed a viewpoint on killing the elderly for monetary gain.

dennisn

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Calm down Dennis, you're starting to repeat yourself!

I always repeat myself on this subject. I have these views on how things are and they haven't changed. Just like everyone else's haven't.
I guess that means that we're all a bunch of stubborn humans. I can deal with that.

Bakunin

A quick poll -- what is worse?

a) The post-modern silliness of Dennis.

b) That Iain is apparently so bored that he is willing to argue with Dennis.

c) Bernie's critique of US intellectual culture.


Do we need anymore evidence that this thread should go away?

dennisn

Bakunin wrote:

A quick poll -- what is worse?

a) The post-modern silliness of Dennis.

b) That Iain is apparently so bored that he is willing to argue with Dennis.

c) Bernie's critique of US intellectual culture.


Do we need anymore evidence that this thread should go away?

Good point's. I'm gone, but will keep an eye on you guys. Great reading in any case, even though none of us has convinced anyone else of anything as far as our views go.

blazing_saddles

Seems to me that the alternative to seeking justice, through the truth, is to accept the status quo.
Let Lance continue to ride roughshod over the rules.
Let Lance continue to cheat with impunity and use his "success" to promote the sport because he has become an rich, international figure.......through cheating.

In other words, let Lance do whatever the hell he pleases and rather than question, applaud.

Is Dennis suggesting we are simply out to get Lance because we are all jealous of his fame and fortune?

If Lance gets taken down, it will have nothing to do with his forum detractors demanding justice, but through federal investigation confirming the allegations.
The fallout for the sport, especially in the US, would be huge.
The plain truth is, it was a huge gamble to allow one man to become so successful from the fruits of the poisonous tree.
Those who encouraged it to happen are supposed to be the guardians of our sport. Instead, their corruption has led us into this current crisis.
Now, they no longer hold fate in their hands.

No_Ta_Doctor

Bakunin wrote:

A quick poll -- what is worse?

a) The post-modern silliness of Dennis.

Sorry, but I can't let that pass. I resent the claim that Dennis has anything to do with post-modernity. If you want that claim to stand then you'll have to do a proper deconstruction of his postings.

Bakunin

No tA Doctor wrote:

Bakunin wrote:

A quick poll -- what is worse?

a) The post-modern silliness of Dennis.

Sorry, but I can't let that pass. I resent the claim that Dennis has anything to do with post-modernity. If you want that claim to stand then you'll have to do a proper deconstruction of his postings.

Well, I could approach this from a number of different perspectives -- blending Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard...but does anyone care?

amd-sco

As Baudrilliard would say "The Dennis did not happen".

No_Ta_Doctor

Or as Foucault might have said, though probably on another thread... Gruber = Power.

I'm just not sure Dennis is being thought of as postmodern, unless he's doing some sort of performance art.

dennisn

No tA Doctor wrote:

Or as Foucault might have said, though probably on another thread... Gruber = Power.

I'm just not sure Dennis is being thought of as postmodern, unless he's doing some sort of performance art.

I know I said I was gone but aren't you guys making a whole lot more of me than I am?
I sure think so. I can't be all of this. Can I??? Well, we humans are a complicated species.
Trust me. I'm not all, and or, who you think I am. I don't view myself as anywhere near what some of you describe. Thanks for thinking of me though(good or bad). Your thoughts of me are my savior.

paulcuthbert

Habitus

Bakunin

paulcuthbert wrote:

Habitus

That is Pierre Bourdeiu.

He is no post-modern theorist -- but he was a blow hard.

Good try.

No_Ta_Doctor

I think we can allow a broader spectrum of philosophers and theorists their say on this matter though, don't you?

Martin Heidegger:
The phenomenology of cycling reveals Being-on-the-saddle and Being-out-of-the-saddle. It is only when we are Being-out-of-the-saddle that we begin to think about our Being-cycling and its ontology becomes present to us. It is when we are Being-out-of-the-saddle that EPO and electric motors present themselves to us as opportunities and solutions to our Being-in-considerable-pain-and-not-winning-enough. None of this matters though as long as a German wins, preferably one with blue eyes and blond hair.

Merleau-Ponty:
When we cycling our mind-body becomes extended through the bicycle. We do not control the bicycle through its handlebars, nor do we increase our speed by increasing our cadence, rather we respond as mind-body-cycle to our inescapable existence within the world. An electric motor in the seat tube ceases to be other to us, it is merely and extension of our being.

Sartré:
The absence of a presence is not the same as as the presence of an absence. In Armstrong's samples we notice the absence of positive results because we expect them, the absence is present to us. It was not until Cancellara flew past Boonen that we noticed the absence of a presence of an electric motor in Boonen's bike. Anyone for more Pernod?

calvjones

Bakunin wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

Habitus

That is Pierre Bourdeiu.

He is no post-modern theorist -- but he was a blow hard.

Good try.

There's a serious issue here with regards to the surfeit of symbolic power that Lance has accrued over the years in cycling, and its implications.

Or was that a different Bourdeiu :oops: ?

calvjones

Fk me I can't even spell him!