Leipheimer suspicious blood values in 05
Comments
-
Apparently we need logic to deal with the point "Bernie" is trying to make. Good one.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
But is it as prevalent? Also, thousands of books and articles have been written, especially by Americans, arguing that in the USA such an attitude doesn't just affect top level sport but 'permeates every inch of American culture'. This also extends to the political arena where 'Full-spectrum dominance' is still official US policy.Moray Gub wrote:So you have provided a few links where various individuals say win at costs attitude is prevalent in the States.........aye very good but it is prevalent in most countries and most sports especailly at the top level.
Perhaps surprisingly, given the degree to which US culture is based on beliefs such as 'Nice guys finish last' (attributed to US baseball manager Leo Durocher) and 'To the victors belong the spoils', (a term coined by New York Senator William Marcy) a number of books have been published in the USA raising concerns about the degree to which America's 'win at all costs' culture has a negative effect on children. For example, 'Game On: How the Pressure to Win at All Costs Endangers Youth Sports and What Parents Can Do About It' and 'Until It Hurts: America's Obsession with Youth Sports and How It Harms Our Kids'. To quote from one of the buyer comments from the second book:
I recently attended a friend's child's Little League game, and was taken aback at the intensity and unhappiness of the whole experience: Coaches yelling at players constantly, parents yelling and agonizing about their kids, kids outright bawling following a strikeout. Wow. I thought sports was supposed to be fun.0 -
What you haven't done is provide any good evidence to back up your argument. Anecdotes and cherry picked quotes don't count.BikingBernie wrote:
But is it as prevalent? Also, thousands of books and articles have been written, especially by Americans, arguing that in the USA such an attitude doesn't just affect top level sport but 'permeates every inch of American culture'. This also extends to the political arena where 'Full-spectrum dominance' is still official US policy.Moray Gub wrote:So you have provided a few links where various individuals say win at costs attitude is prevalent in the States.........aye very good but it is prevalent in most countries and most sports especailly at the top level.
Perhaps surprisingly, given the degree to which US culture is based on beliefs such as 'Nice guys finish last' (attributed to US baseball manager Leo Durocher) and 'To the victors belong the spoils', (a term coined by New York Senator William Marcy) a number of books have been published in the USA raising concerns about the degree to which America's 'win at all costs' culture has a negative effect on children. For example, 'Game On: How the Pressure to Win at All Costs Endangers Youth Sports and What Parents Can Do About It' and 'Until It Hurts: America's Obsession with Youth Sports and How It Harms Our Kids'. To quote from one of the buyer comments from the second book:
I recently attended a friend's child's Little League game, and was taken aback at the intensity and unhappiness of the whole experience: Coaches yelling at players constantly, parents yelling and agonizing about their kids, kids outright bawling following a strikeout. Wow. I thought sports was supposed to be fun.0 -
Yeah, right! I have heard creationists adopt much the same tactic in relation to the fossil and geological record, and come to that disciples of Armstrong who try to argue that there is no 'good' evidence that he doped.Seanos wrote:What you haven't done is provide any good evidence to back up your argument. Anecdotes and cherry picked quotes don't count.
In any case, what you say in no way amounts to a refutation of what I have argued. Perhaps you can present a counter case, free of 'anecdotes and cherry picked quotes' of course...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Yeah, right! I have heard creationists adopt much the same tactic in relation to the fossil and geological record, and come to that disciples of Armstrong who try to argue that there is no 'good' evidence that he doped.Seanos wrote:What you haven't done is provide any good evidence to back up your argument. Anecdotes and cherry picked quotes don't count.
Isn't Seanos talking about what you're saying about Americans and their attitudes?
I can point at Vaughters and Bob Stapleton are guys who don't have that kind of attitude.
Do you think Franco Pellozotti, Danilo Di Luca, Dekker etc etc got their attitide from the US, or are some people just like that?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I would point you to what I said earlier. Pay especial attention to the phrase 'particularly American'....iainf72 wrote:Isn't Seanos talking about what you're saying about Americans and their attitudes? I can point at Vaughters and Bob Stapleton are guys who don't have that kind of attitude. Do you think Franco Pellozotti, Danilo Di Luca, Dekker etc etc got their attitide from the US, or are some people just like that?Once again, both your and DaveyL's grasp of logic is wanting. To give an analogous example that might be simpler for you to grasp, take a generalised statement such as 'Levels of obesity are higher in the USA than in Europe'. To point to a fat German, or come to that a skinny American, does not in any way disprove the statement! Similarly, to point to non-American individuals who are highly competitive does not in itself disprove a claim that a 'win at all costs' mentality is particularly 'American' in character. In fact 5 minutes search on Google will bring up thousands of articles arguing just that.
Such a 'win at all costs' attitude is largely an extension of the 'dog eat dog' competitive individualism that the whole of American 'society' (I use the word loosely) is based on. Of course, the dominance of the USA has also seen such 'values' become pretty widespread across the globe.0 -
They do like to win things. Like being the most generous people in the world
Americans are the most generous people in the world, measured by charitable giving as a percent of GDP. Americans give twice as much (1.67% of GDP) as the next most charitable country, the U.K. at 0.73%, according to this study by the Charities Aid Foundation (chart above is taken from the study). Americans give almost 12 times as much as the French and almost 8 times as much as the Germans. In fact, Americans give more as a percent of GDP than France, Germany, Turkey, New Zealand, Singapore and the Netherlands COMBINED
See, I can use the google too. Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
This simply reflects the low level of taxation in the USA, taxation that in other countries, such as France, pays for all the 'social' provision that is left the the 'charity' sector in the USA. Of course, what Americans choose to give in 'charity' is a tiny fraction of what those in other countries give via the state to the needy. Americans would probably riot rather than pay more taxes to benefit the poor. Just look at the opposition to Obama's scheme to inflate the profits of health insurance companies with money raised from taxation.iainf72 wrote:They do like to win things. Like being the most generous people in the world
Americans are the most generous people in the world, measured by charitable giving as a percent of GDP. Americans give twice as much (1.67% of GDP) as the next most charitable country, the U.K. at 0.73%, according to this study by the Charities Aid Foundation (chart above is taken from the study). Americans give almost 12 times as much as the French and almost 8 times as much as the Germans. In fact, Americans give more as a percent of GDP than France, Germany, Turkey, New Zealand, Singapore and the Netherlands COMBINED0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Just look at the opposition to Obama's scheme to inflate the profits of health insurance companies with money raised from taxation.
The biggest opposition being from the people who it would help most. Go figure.
If 'mericans are all bad, how are they going to assemble a grand jury of people who can be trusted?
You need to take a look at your posts and realise your anti-American xenophobia is just the same as what you accuse Americans of with regard to "the French".Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I wasn't attempting to refute what you said, I was just pointing out that you haven't presented any credible evidence to back up your argument.BikingBernie wrote:
Yeah, right! I have heard creationists adopt much the same tactic in relation to the fossil and geological record, and come to that disciples of Armstrong who try to argue that there is no 'good' evidence that he doped.Seanos wrote:What you haven't done is provide any good evidence to back up your argument. Anecdotes and cherry picked quotes don't count.
In any case, what you say in no way amounts to a refutation of what I have argued. Perhaps you can present a counter case, free of 'anecdotes and cherry picked quotes' of course...
I'm not sure you understand that all evidence is not equal. Using an anecdote in a book review or some cherry picked quotes in support of an argument that Americans in particular have a certain attitude towards winning isn't as persuasive as quoting an acamedic study on the same topic.
In fact it just makes you look like a bit of a crank to be honest. Which is ironic since you tried to lump me in with the creationists.0 -
He is a crank....
Haven't you figured that out yet?0 -
iainf72 wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
And so, as predicted, the Armstrong fan-boys are being forced to move from a now unsupportable 'He beat them all and he was clean' stance to the new defence of 'So what, all the rest doped as well'. :roll:donrhummy wrote:name me the rider who placed behind him that you think was the legitimate winner. Someone whom you are CERTAIN did not dope.
I don't think that's Don's point.
If you take the wins, who do you give them to? They just need an * next to the name and job done. Or no winner.
Exactly right. I think that era is such that you can't reliably say that one rider deserved the "clean" win over another.0 -
I have never argued that 'Americans are all bad', as in 'Americans' as individuals.iainf72 wrote:If 'mericans are all bad, how are they going to assemble a grand jury of people who can be trusted? You need to take a look at your posts and realise your anti-American xenophobia is just the same as what you accuse Americans of with regard to "the French".
What I have argued is that many aspects of what defines America have far from positive effects, both for tens of millions Americans and the wider world. One consequence, as you rightly point out, is the widespread cross-income and cross-race hostility to social provision in the US, be this in the form of creating a European-style universal health care system or increasing benefits in order to address America's huge inequality in wealth. (And this despite the fact that approaching 25% of the American population officially live in poverty).
Why should so many Americans be so hostile to the creation of a social system more like that of, say, Denmark, Sweden or even France? The recent health care 'debate' suggests this is largely because the American population is effectively brainwashed by powerful corporate interests into thinking that anything that is not left to the mercy of 'the market' is effectively totalitarianism, inevitably resulting in an enslaved population. Sounds crazy but millions of Americans, influenced by the ideas of people like Friedrich von Hayek and Ayn Rand, do seem to believe it with almost religious fervour. To my mind this is a huge con-job designed to keep the powerful in power and maintain the status quo.
(It could be argued that much of the hostility towards France from those on the political right in the USA is motivated by similar goals, with the traditional French ideals of 'egality', the protective state and collectivism being regarded as posing an ideological threat to the hierarchical, individualistic, corporate hegemony of the American model).
Another aspect of the con-job underpinning the 'American dream' is the belief that all that is needed in order to succeed is the will and hard work. In reality the whole notion of the 'meritocracy' is, to a large extent, a sham. What's more it justifies blaming those who don't 'succeed' for their lack of 'success'. This is nothing more than Social Darwinism.
This is one thing that makes the whole cult of Armstrong so interesting. He has been held to be the epitome of American values, succeeding because he was on his bike 'six hours a day, busting his ass'. Meanwhile he argued that the French, for example, did not succeed because they were too lazy to train properly and lacked the will to win. The reality, of course, was that the secret to Armstrong's success was not so much hard work as Epo and blood doping. In this sense Armstrong is just another small example of the reality behind the huge con-job that underpins the 'American Dream'. From what I have seen his apologists don't just want to keep on believing in Santa-Claus, they want to keep on believing in the very American myth that he represents.0 -
Far from it. I am all for meritocracy if it based on merit rather than nepotism, social background or the ability to pay. Similarly, I am all for rewarding those who excel in sport, as long as their success is authentic, rather than being based on the use of Epo and blood-doping.RichN95 wrote:^^^ For those who can't be bothered to read all that, here's a summary: "Man who came last at his school sports day thinks everyone should get a prize"
Anyhow, here is another quote that might be more in tune with your own, seemingly rather 'Darwinian', way of thinking.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."0 -
Funny how these things are subjective isn't it? My summary is "Man with too much time on his hands and lacking a sense of perspective makes up stuff that sounds plausible and then desperately goes looking for any kind of evidence to support it regardless of quality, whilst developing the bunker mindset and debating skills of a 911 troofer"RichN95 wrote:^^^ For those who can't be bothered to read all that, here's a summary: "Man who came last at his school sports day thinks everyone should get a prize"
It's all a bit tragic really, does he still live with his mum?0 -
To be fair, the weight of evidence does suggest that americans value winning more than people in other countries. How many articles etc can you find saying the opposite? Bet you'd find plenty mentions of brits liking plucky losers.
The US mentality BB describes is part of the american dream.
And before people attack me from making broad-brush statements, I am just talking about tendencies.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:This is one thing that makes the whole cult of Armstrong so interesting. He has been held to be the epitome of American values, succeeding because he was on his bike 'six hours a day, busting his ass'. Meanwhile he argued that the French, for example, did not succeed because they were too lazy to train properly and lacked the will to win. The reality, of course, was that the secret to Armstrong's success was not so much hard work as Epo and blood doping. In this sense Armstrong is just another small example of the reality behind the huge con-job that underpins the 'American Dream'. From what I have seen his apologists don't just want to keep on believing in Santa-Claus, they want to keep on believing in the very American myth that he represents.
Nonsense. Armstrongs success was down to hard work AND EPO / blood doping. Just like Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, Beloki, Kloden. He had a good prepatore, no doubt, and the willingness to do things, but lets not pretend he didn't work for it.
I really hate this idea of trying to drag nationalism or something into it. It's pathetic as Lance's lawyer talking about it being "un-American". The man he worked with was from Belgium who'd been taught everything he knew by a Spaniard. The doctor that made him go fast was Italian. The man who created the big smoke screen was Dutch.
All countries have bad sides. The US has terrible foreign policy and record on human rights, but at the same time, they're probably making the most significant contribution to moving mankind forward at the moment. France may have a life style people would envy, and hell, I envy it slightly, but I doubt that immigrant woman I saw on the TV with baby on back being hurled to the ground by a French copper would agree with me.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
On the contrary. I would also argue that the ubiquity of the phrases I have quoted, such as "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing", "Nice guys finish last" and "To the victors belong the spoils" says a lot about their significance in the culture that produced them. In comparison, DaveyL's "If you can't take a punch, you should play table tennis" is so obscure it is practically an irrelevance.Seanos wrote:I'm not sure you understand that all evidence is not equal.0 -
Of course all pro cyclists work hard. However, without Epo and blood doping Armstrong would have probably remained the also-ran he was in 2005, or would have even failed to finish as in 2003 and 2004. Just like Riis and plenty of other riders it was Epo that made him.iainf72 wrote:Armstrongs success was down to hard work AND EPO / blood doping. Just like Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, Beloki, Kloden.0 -
The correct title of this thread should be
Peloton suspicious blood values in 050 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Of course all pro cyclists work hard. However, without Epo and blood doping would have probably remained the also-ran he was in 2005, or would have even failed to finish as in 2003 and 2004. Just like Riis and plenty of other riders it was Epo that made him.iainf72 wrote:Armstrongs success was down to hard work AND EPO / blood doping. Just like Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, Beloki, Kloden.
Jeez, iain, the rest of your post must have disappeared into a black hole...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
TdF 05 Top ten.
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel DOPER 86.15.02 (41.654 km/h)
2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC DOPER 4.40
3 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team DOPER 6.21
4 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne DOPER 9.59
5 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) T-Mobile Team DOPER 11.01
6 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner DOPER 11.21
7 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank DOPER 11.33
8 Cadel Evans (Aus) Davitamon-Lotto 11.55
9 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems DOPER 12.44
10 Oscar Pereiro Sio (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 16.04
TdF 04 Top ten
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor DOPER 83.36.02 (40.56 km/h)
2 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team DOPER 6.19
3 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC DOPER 6.40
4 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team DOPER 8.50
5 Jose Azevedo (Por) US Postal p/b Berry Floor DOPER? 14.30
6 Francisco Mancebo Pérez (Spa) Illes Balears - Banesto DOPER 18.01
7 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner DOPER? 18.27
8 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC 19.51
9 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Rabobank DOPER 20.12
10 Oscar Pereiro (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 22.54
TdF 03 Top ten
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal-Berry Floor DOPER 83.41.12 (40.94 km/h)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) Team Bianchi DOPER 1.01
3 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Team Telekom DOPER 4.14
4 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Team CSC DOPER 6.17
5 Haimar Zubeldia (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 6.51
6 Iban Mayo (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi DOPER 7.06
7 Ivan Basso (Ita) Fassa Bortolo DOPER 10.12
8 Christophe Moreau (Fra) Credit Agricole DOPER 12.28
9 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC 18.49
10 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) iBanesto.com DOPER 19.15
And you could go on like this
This post over on CN forums is worth a glance:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7572Contador is the Greatest0 -
dulldave wrote:Moray Gub wrote:much in keeping with sections of the right wing English tabloids actually.
The Scottish ones are just as bad. Or are you referring to English language rather than origin?
The Scottish tabloids can be described as many things but right wing sure aint one of them, oh for sure the Scottish Daily Mail can bang on about immigrants and benefit scroungers but its small beer compared to the rabid nature of the English tabloids .Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
frenchfighter wrote:TdF 05 Top ten.
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel DOPER 86.15.02 (41.654 km/h)
2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC DOPER 4.40
3 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team DOPER 6.21
4 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne DOPER 9.59
5 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) T-Mobile Team DOPER 11.01
6 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner DOPER 11.21
7 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank DOPER 11.33
8 Cadel Evans (Aus) Davitamon-Lotto 11.55
9 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems DOPER 12.44
10 Oscar Pereiro Sio (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 16.04
And you could go on like this
yea Including this year
Bertie : alleged puerto doper
Andy : brother paid puerto doctor 7000 euros for training plans and he rode for Mr 60%
Denny :Vienna etc etcGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
French Fighter, an interesting list but what criteria are you using to determine whether they are dopers?
According to you, for example:
Dopers: Leipheimer, Toschnig
Clean: Pereiro, Zubeldia
I'm not sure I'd be able to make that distinction. Just going by the convicted/banished riders, makes the point.Twitter: @RichN950 -
BikingBernie wrote:Similarly, I am all for rewarding those who excel in sport, as long as their success is authentic, rather than being based on the use of Epo and blood-doping.
Unless they're women of course ...0 -
I am all for rewarding those who excel in sport, even if they are competing in events that are closed to those riding at the limits of human ability. On the other hand I am not sure that sport should be jury-rigged so that female competitors, or disabled athletes, or juniors, or others riding in a 'protected' category were given the same rewards as those who triumph in fully open competitions.stagehopper wrote:
Unless they're women of course ...BikingBernie wrote:Similarly, I am all for rewarding those who excel in sport, as long as their success is authentic, rather than being based on the use of Epo and blood-doping.
Of course if a female competitor came along who could kick the asses of the likes of Contador and Cavendish, they should expect to get exactly the same rewards.0
