NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped
Comments
-
I think he's got science and religion mixed up. One offers certainty of belief and prescribed facts, the other only provides hypothesis and a framework within which to live your life.0
-
is he gonna do bird or walk then?0
-
Toto discusses silence and talk:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2010/toto-turns-1950 -
What if Tailwind Sports did obtain money on false pretences, there could be trouble for those. Weisel is just one of the people in the background, you have Stapleton and others.0
-
Kléber wrote:What if Tailwind Sports did obtain money on false pretences, there could be trouble for those. Weisel is just one of the people in the background, you have Stapleton and others.
There is a big web - CSE etc. Even Direct Media could get dragged into it
I think I read somewhere in the past that Weisel has attracted attention from the law before.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Surely they could've got someone better than Jonker? He raced, what, twice with Armstrong in 2000, wasn't at the Tour etc etc.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
In reality, despite attempts by relativists, post-modernists and other assorted cranks to argue that epistemological doubts mean that the inductive methods of science offer no 'proof', a quick consideration of real-world examples will show that this is a false position. For example, on what grounds would you argue that there is no proof (that is, there is room for doubt), only 'suggestive evidence', when it comes to the Earth being approximately round, the Sun being at the centre of the Solar System, certain micro-organisms being the cause of disease and so forth?paulcuthbert wrote:I was always told you can't prove most things- just that there is a lot of evidence to suggest something...
Moving away from matters of scientific proof (such as the fact that Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples had Epo in them) what are your views on the criminal justice process? This only requires something to be 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'. If, for example, you had been on the jury of the Yorkshire Ripper, would you have refused to give a 'guilty' vote on the grounds there was no 'proof' he had committed the murders?
Would you support a denier if they were to argue that there is no proof that the Holocaust ever happened, just evidence 'suggesting' this which can be interpreted in other ways?
"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as 'the truth' exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as 'science'. There is only 'German science', 'Jewish science' etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, 'It never happened' - well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five - well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs - and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement."
Orwell: "Looking Back on the Spanish War" (written 1942, published 1943), CE II, 296f.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
In reality, despite attempts by relativists, post-modernists and other assorted cranks to argue that epistemological doubts mean that the inductive methods of science offer no 'proof', a quick consideration of real-world examples will show that this is a false position. For example, on what grounds would you argue that there is no proof, only 'evidence', suggesting that the Earth is approximately round, that the Sun lies at the centre of the Solar System, that certain micro-organisms are the cause of disease and so forth?paulcuthbert wrote:I was always told you can't prove most things- just that there is a lot of evidence to suggest something...
Moving away from matters of scientific proof (such as the fact that Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples had Epo in them) what are your views on the criminal justice process? This only requires something to be 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'. If, for example, you had been on the jury of the Yorkshire Ripper, would you have refused to give a 'guilty' vote on the grounds there was no 'proof' he had committed the murders?
Would you support a denier if they were to argue that there is no proof that the Holocaust ever happened, just evidence 'suggesting' this which can be interpreted in other ways?
"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as 'the truth' exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as 'science'. There is only 'German science', 'Jewish science' etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, 'It never happened' - well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five - well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs - and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement."
Orwell: "Looking Back on the Spanish War" (written 1942, published 1943), CE II, 296f.
The whole "relativists and postmodernists" angle is a red herring Berni. I don't think anyone arguing that there's no proof LA doped is doing so from a committed philosophical perspective on the nature of proof. It's only necessary to show that enough "proof" exists within the confines of the cultural normative manner in which we use the word, not to establish proof as epistemologically absolute.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
True, if only because they have no grasp of the nature of the debate. However, even in the absence of that understanding, some do appear to draw comfort from parroting the sloganising of post-modernists and their ilk by claiming that no amount of evidence amounts to 'proof'.No tA Doctor wrote:I don't think anyone arguing that there's no proof LA doped is doing so from a committed philosophical perspective on the nature of proof.
However, the are multiple 'norms' in relation to the way a word such as 'proof' is used. It could be argued that it is WADA that sets the 'cultural normative manner in which we use the word' in relation to doping cases. This means that any amount of evidence which would lead to an investigatory panel being 'comfortably satisfied' that doping took place must be taken as 'proof'. The WADA norm does not even demand confirmation of a positive test via a matching 'B' sample and accepts that the eye-witness testimony of others, evidence of purchase of doping-related materials and so forth also amounts to evidence. I would argue that, in Armstrong's case, the evidence actually provides a higher level of proof than WADA demands.No tA Doctor wrote:It's only necessary to show that enough "proof" exists within the confines of the cultural normative manner in which we use the word, not to establish proof as epistemologically absolute.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:iainf72 wrote:... However, there is a world of difference between the collective, egalitarian values that are traditionally associated with France, and the individualistic, corporatist values that are associated with the US. The conflict between the two are where my comments are directed. ...
I think you need to understand political concepts a little more before writing about them.
You describe the values traditionally associated with America as "individualist" and "corporatist". This is nonsense. The values you describe are individualist, in that they value individual freedom, but they are not "corporatist". Corporatism was fascism's goal, a state in which, although private sector enterprise was permitted, everything was subject to the will of the state. The modern take on corporatism involves undermining free enterprise by the favouring of "national champions", companies who can take on the "national champions" of other states tempted by such folly. Try P.J. O'Rourke on the Welath of Nations, he explains it better than I could.
Interesting that America has a stronger tradition of philanthropy than anywhere else!0 -
I thought this was a cycling forum? I seem to have stumbled into headsqueeze.com.......0
-
Might I suggest that your own understanding of modern 'corporatism' is rather lacking. No wonder, perhaps, if you are relying on right-wing 'libertarian' loons like P.J. O'Rourke for your ideas!Dgh wrote:You describe the values traditionally associated with America as "individualist" and "corporatist". This is nonsense. The values you describe are individualist, in that they value individual freedom, but they are not "corporatist". Corporatism was fascism's goal, a state in which, although private sector enterprise was permitted, everything was subject to the will of the state.
Contemporary 'libertarian' individualism is opposed in principle to 'the state' in all it's forms, other than that which protects personal property / power, especially where 'the state' places controls on how individuals live their lives for the benefit of the wider society. (Taxation, the use of 'Big Government' speed cameras and so forth). Its basic tenet is well put by Ayn Rand who said 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).
Contemporary 'corporatism' is also opposed in principle to 'the state' in all it's forms, other than that which protects personal property / power, especially where 'the state' places controls on how corporations run their businesses for the benefit of the wider society. (Workers rights, 'Big Government' safety and environmental regulations and so forth).
In this sense both contemporary 'individualism' and 'corporatism' have much the same goals, or rather the corporate elite who control the media have convinced the population that dismantling the power of the democratically accountable 'state' is in their common interest. However, in reality such 'corporatism' is a pathway to what Popper called 'the closed society' and is in many ways a rehash of old 'state' fascism, only with unelected and unaccountable corporations in charge. This has become possible because many corporations have gradually become bigger and more powerful than nation states, and so are able to dictate to governments how they conduct their affairs.
It is also clear that in this new regime the role of 'the state', where it is to be tolerated, is not to serve the interests of individual citizens but to serve the interests of corporate power, as is witnessed by the current cuts in social benefits in the wake of the multi-billion dollar bailouts given to the financial sector, a process that has been called 'socialism for the rich'.
The 'fascistic' nature of the politics underpinning this process has not gone unnoticed:
http://web.archive.org/web/200801181802 ... /14pts.htm
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... on=library
That is merely a reflection of the view in the USA that the state should not be in the business of providing the sort of social provision - such as universal health care - that is considered the norm across much of the world. In contrast to high tax, high social provision countries such as Sweden, the US has a low taxation, low social provision system where the shortfall is left to the individual and charities to fill. Of course, whilst the US may give somewhat more in charity than many other countries, what is given in charity is a tiny percentage of what citizens in other countries contribute via taxation. The end result is poor or non-existent social provision and a higher percentage of the national wealth remaining in the pockets of the wealthy.Dgh wrote:Interesting that America has a stronger tradition of philanthropy than anywhere else!0 -
Biking Bernie dont be such a big head.
All those big words for one man,they cant be good for you.0 -
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.senoj wrote:Biking Bernie dont be such a big head. All those big words for one man,they cant be good for you.
http://web.archive.org/web/200801181802 ... /14pts.htm0 -
FFS, pull your heads out of your a$$es you pathetic bores
Anyone for bike racing ?Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Having a PhD in copy and paste does not make one an intellectual.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
And maybe a beer?colint wrote:FFS, pull your heads out of your a$$es you pathetic bores. Anyone for bike racing ?
"I’ll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. ‘I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.’ ‘I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.’ ‘Hey, wait a minute, there’s one guy holding out both puppets!’ ‘Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here’s Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."
Bill Hicks.0 -
And my supposed source is? Admitted, I do read a lot...DaveyL wrote:Having a PhD in copy and paste does not make one an intellectual.
Read these articles today, amongst other things. Both are highly recommended...
Jimmy Reid, the Clydeside trade union activist who died this week, was an inspiring orator. This speech, delivered on his inauguration as rector of Glasgow University in 1972, was compared at the time to the Gettysburg Address. It has lost little of its relevance
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 51285.html
No city in America has had its fortunes tied to the rise and fall of the manufacturing economy more than Detroit. Home to the American auto industry, symbol of post-war prosperity, Detroit now stands as a synonym for urban decline. This month historian and Detroit native Kevin Boyle gives us a very personal meditation on the city and puts his own experience of growing up in Detroit in historical perspective.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/art ... ticleid=260 -
From Jimmy Reid's rectorial speech...
The other illustration is the widespread, implicit acceptance of the concept and term "the rat race". The picture it conjures up is one where we are scurrying around scrambling for position, trampling on others, back-stabbing, all in pursuit of personal success. Even genuinely intended, friendly advice can sometimes take the form of someone saying to you, "Listen, you look after number one." Or as they say in London, "Bang the bell, Jack, I'm on the bus."
To the students [of Glasgow University] I address this appeal. Reject these attitudes. Reject the values and false morality that underlie these attitudes. A rat race is for rats. We're not rats. We're human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts, and before you know where you are, you're a fully paid-up member of the rat-pack. The price is too high. It entails the loss of your dignity and human spirit. Or as Christ put it, "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?"
Profit is the sole criterion used by the establishment to evaluate economic activity. From the rat race to lame ducks. The vocabulary in vogue is a give-away. It's more reminiscent of a human menagerie than human society. The power structures that have inevitably emerged from this approach threaten and undermine our hard-won democratic rights. The whole process is towards the centralisation and concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. The facts are there for all who want to see. Giant monopoly companies and consortia dominate almost every branch of our economy. The men who wield effective control within these giants exercise a power over their fellow men which is frightening and is a negation of democracy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 51285.html0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
And my supposed source is? Admitted, I do read a lot...DaveyL wrote:Having a PhD in copy and paste does not make one an intellectual.
Someone once told me that a person could read every book ever printed about swimming. This person could go to all the swim meets he could attend. He could travel to all the beaches of the world. Yet if he never tried to swim himself he would most likely drown if he fell in and the water was over his head. So read all you can BB, just don't confuse reading about something with actually doing it.0 -
A very poor analogy, given that what we are talking about here is not acquiring a physical skill but thinking in a critical and rational way about the world around us. I 'do' a lot of that. In my line of work I even get paid to encourage others to do the same.dennisn wrote:Someone once told me that a person could read every book ever printed about swimming. This person could go to all the swim meets he could attend. He could travel to all the beaches of the world. Yet if he never tried to swim himself he would most likely drown if he fell in and the water was over his head. So read all you can BB, just don't confuse reading about something with actually doing it. 0 -
You get paid? What a terribly hierarchical/authoritarian construct...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
BB, what do you do for a living?0
-
BikingBernie wrote:
A very poor analogy, given that what we are talking about here is not acquiring a physical skill but thinking in a critical and rational way about the world around us. I 'do' a lot of that. In my line of work I even get paid to encourage others to do the same.dennisn wrote:Someone once told me that a person could read every book ever printed about swimming. This person could go to all the swim meets he could attend. He could travel to all the beaches of the world. Yet if he never tried to swim himself he would most likely drown if he fell in and the water was over his head. So read all you can BB, just don't confuse reading about something with actually doing it.
Had to throw my 2 cents worth in. Feel like I've been absent for a while and I have. Going to try to write myself back into tip top forum shape. I'll be worse than ever. Anyway, I just recently retired from the business world. Much to my delight, I might add. Actually it was company downsizing and I had planned to retire in early January 2011. So sometimes things work out OK. Can't believe the time I now have for riding. It's like a whole other world. Pick the nice days, go out when you want, do some weight training
on the bad days. It's great. I'm just not sure that since I have this new attitude(happy and carefree) that my postings(formerly savage and precise) will possibly be bright and cheerfull from now on. A whole new me. Hmmmmmm 5 PM, beautiful afternoon, tires pumped up, see ya later.0 -
and there was me just thinking that Dennis had gone quiet 'cos he's avoiding his debts on our little Tour De France wager
Hope you enjoy your retirement Dennis
Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0 -
This is a thread Hijack ?dennisn wrote:Can't believe the time I now have for riding. It's like a whole other world. Pick the nice days, go out when you want, do some weight training
on the bad days. It's great. I'm just not sure that since I have this new attitude(happy and carefree) that my postings(formerly savage and precise) will possibly be bright and cheerfull from now on. A whole new me. Hmmmmmm 5 PM, beautiful afternoon, tires pumped up, see ya later.
I did that and got hit by a car. !
Tell me, do you go riding in Amish country which can't be far away. ?Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
dennisn wrote:. It's great. I'm just not sure that since I have this new attitude(happy and carefree) that my postings(formerly savage and precise) will possibly be bright and cheerfull from now on. A whole new me. Hmmmmmm 5 PM, beautiful afternoon, tires pumped up, see ya later.
Savage and Precise............
You are sadly deluded about your writing skills.0
