Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

[QUOTE=Ste_S;1464469]Not really, interested to hear what you think 'lots of money' is.
QUOTE]

make your mind up. first you asked me to 'define' it.

damn i forgot lance was such an evil bully and forgot to factor that in to my sports economy model. if only lance would leave the sport, then everything would be so much better.

That is an economic model? You repeatedly seem to confuse the notion of democracy, socialism and capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism are not exclusive to one another. Britain, up until the 80's, was a socialist democracy in the sense that all main infrastructure was nationalised, trade unions were strong and there was a large welfare state. The USA, too, was a social democracy (to a lesser degree) as their welfare state is considerably smaller, although Teddy Roosvelt, like Obama, was planning to bring in a national health service before he died and it was shelved. In the 'golden age' of American Capitalism, roughly ending in the 70's, the top earners paid a %90 tax rate. Debt was low, jobs were plentiful, social mobility was improving and this also co-insides with huge advances in social equality.

Since then, western economies have moved towards an un-regulated mode of capitalism where civil liberties are at an all time low, trade unions are weak, the welfare state crumbles and the rich pay fuck all in tax. Punters pick up the tab for huge international banks irresponsibly trading, and are told to tighten their belts whilst the same banks continue to give out billions in bonuses to the same people that fucked us in the first place.

That you think this is a great idea and glibly deride 'socialists' who would have a fairer, more just society is really rather unsurprising given your fetish for LA and his self-glorifying, power hungry media train. The following famous words were written by Einstein-pay attention to the last sentence. Applied to cycling it would mean applauding people for their natural ability and sportsmanship rather than the amount of money they earn or titles they 'win':

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?

So, it's not about Capitalism or Socialism, its about the underlying values that you would have people aspire to and the people you would hold up as role models as a result.

Is it really a sport though?

Is it really a sport though?

Only if you're wearing the right logo on your shirt. And have your own charity bracelet.

That is an economic model?

no it's not an economic model it's a light hearted piece of sarcasm. if you'd have spotted that you might have saved yourself typing out the history lesson. the general point is that armstrong is making money out of cycling, so what?
I'm not confused about capitalism and socialism i was just baiting the lefties. those who criticise armstrong seem to have gone through a whole range of reasons. from doping, telling lies, not being nice, making money, using cancer to make money etc etc and that he's backed up by a massive network of evil media and big business guys. pointing out that most of that is bollox is not a fetish.
p.s. einstein was wrong

Since then, western economies have moved towards an un-regulated mode of capitalism where civil liberties are at an all time low, trade unions are weak, the welfare state crumbles and the rich pay fuck all in tax. Punters pick up the tab for huge international banks irresponsibly trading, and are told to tighten their belts whilst the same banks continue to give out billions in bonuses to the same people that fucked us in the first place.

That you think this is a great idea and glibly deride 'socialists' who would have a fairer, more just society is really rather unsurprising given your fetish for LA and his self-glorifying, power hungry media train.

oh leave it out. the days when you can just waffle on pretending socialism has the rights to a fair and just society are long gone mate. this is a comic book analysis of the present economic crisis. and you thought that was an appropriate response to me suggesting the lefties should welcome armstrong earning money from his labour.

You know Clint you could at least acknowledge that it was Greg LeMond who first broke the old exploitative low-pay system in cycling.
And you know he is a friend of Margaret Thatcher don't you?
Now come on, admit, it, LeMond is better than Lance :)

any friend of maggie is a friend of mine :p

He's happy, he has a friend...

oh leave it out. the days when you can just waffle on pretending socialism has the rights to a fair and just society are long gone mate. this is a comic book analysis of the present economic crisis. and you thought that was an appropriate response to me suggesting the lefties should welcome armstrong earning money from his labour.

If you think that the current economic system of unrestrained capitalism (greed and exploitation of the poor) is ever going to equate to a fair and just society then please explain how. Your lighthearted 'banter' is about as funny as your mocking of Lemond for being abused as a kid.

And yes-Armstrong's success embodies a lot of the evils of big business, for which he has been the posterboy in cycling; big corporations, large sponsorship deals, massive endorsements.... The result is not an improvement in the quality of the sport or a widening of the audience regardless of what anyone thinks-all indications point to a corrupt governing body incapable of regulating itself and widespread, systematic cheating amongst the top teams desperate not to lose out on the cash. Armstrong seems to consider himself bigger than the sport because of the money and influence he can muster, and there are plenty of stories out there that testify to a lack of sportsmanship or integrity out there. Bruyneel's new crusade for 'fairness for the teams and riders' because Radioshack aren't invited to the Vuelta is pretty ironic considering the undue influence he has wielded in the sport over the last decade and the riders that have been sacrificed for Armstrong, don't you think?

So should the 'lefties' welcome Armstrong earning tens, hundreds of millions from cycling when you have to question the legacy he has left for the sport? Well, to even ask that question neglects to question the morality of it, so again you miss the point: its not about him earning money, its about people earning huge sums of money for cheating, being a fraud, and exploiting status to ruin other peoples careers. If the left doesn't have a claim to a fair and just society then why are you incapable of distinguishing this yourself?

and by the way, you have yet to prove that any of the arguments you mention in your last reply is 'bollox'. You just repeat that LA is superhard and you blindly admire him.

He has two ;^)

If you think that the current economic system of unrestrained capitalism (greed and exploitation of the poor) is ever going to equate to a fair and just society then please explain how. Your lighthearted 'banter' is about as funny as your mocking of Lemond for being abused as a kid.

1. capitalism has done more for poor people than socialism.
   
2. capitalism doesn't claim to make a fair and just society. that's up to people
   
3. start showing some evidence that i 'mocked' lemond for being sexually abused. i'm pretty sure velocio and many others would have picked up on that. So make it good or apologise.
   

1. capitalism has done more for poor people than socialism.
   
   
   

Eh?

Is it really a sport though?

it's like darts or snooker really. isn't it?

lemond is a loser with some serious mental health issues. when i read this guys interviews or see him speak i cringe. loved his riding but what a twat. can you imagine having to share a beer with this guy whining on?

didn't lemond finally put his hand up and acept responsibility for the all family issues he had?
I don't think armstrong would be a great bloke to have a beer with to be honest, bit too much of a chino wearer for me but a man rather than*** a lost boy.***
And while we're at it...how comes merckx, hinault, lemond haven't been fingered for drugs.? come on per..leaz

come on scarlett...if armstrong is a media whore (could well be but being in the media a lot doesn't necessarily make you a whore) then at least he's a high class hooker. lemond is defo a media whore but he's a cheap 20 squid a shot junkie bitch down whitechapel way. the bloke is an annoying basket case who needs to get his shit in order before trying to sell his 2 bob 'please listen to me, todays riders can't compare to me it's not fair no one wants to listen to me, yet i was better, racing was more exciting in my day, riders had to....blah, fucking blah' story to any local radio station. great rider though

Tim, I find the undercurrent of blaming LeMond for his own abuse fairly troubling here. In terms of his competitive history, LeMond of course is anything but a 'loser'. What has come out, of course, is that he was sexually abused when he was a child, which is one of the worst things that can happen to anyone...

1. capitalism has done more for poor people than socialism.
   
2. capitalism doesn't claim to make a fair and just society. that's up to people
   
3. start showing some evidence that i 'mocked' lemond for being sexually abused. i'm pretty sure velocio and many others would have picked up on that. So make it good or apologise.
   
   

1) Again you show a total misunderstanding of the notion of 'Socialism' vs 'Capitalism' there are varying degrees of both. If you are thinking of Stalin, Cuba, they are not Socialist Democracies, but totalitarian regimes under the premise of socialism.

2) Again, the core values of any society are underwritten by the system by which it functions. Thatcherite greed does not make for a nice world to live in.

3) I have included a cross section of your compassionate appraisal of Lemond and his underlying problems (which exist totally outside the argument of whether LA is a fraud) in which you display your subtle compassion for your fellow man and illustrate your deep knowledge and understanding of the issues involved here. Oliver Schick did indeed 'pick you up' on them. So I will not apologise to you for portraying you in the manner by which you yourself have decided to appear. So far you have derided anyone and anything that interferes with your perception of Lance and can only offer sweeping generalisations in return that fail to address any points raised. Perhaps you need to stop reading the Daily Express and turn your attention to something that has some kind of grounding in fact. Either way, a whole legion of folk on here haven't been able to sway you and I'm certainly happy enough to leave you on the island of incurable hero worship and set sail on the vessel of veracity.

Now, puss puss want a biscuit?

The press release says: "Lance Armstrong, a great American cyclist, is keenly aware of this problem [of doping]. He voiced a desire that strict doping testing be conducted as part of the Tour de France 2005. Mr Armstrong recommended that the XE-2100 be used in these tests and personally financed UCI's purchase of the required XE-2100."

Ha, choosing and financing the particular drug testing machine which you are going to be tested with.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/473525/the-wednesday-comment.html

well i reckon the socialist capitalist debate should be on another thread or in a pub or something so no more comments there. as for Lemond, well Phew, until oliver mentioned his abuse i'd never heard that, i don't follow lemond that closely but i read a lot of stuff about him and the way he treated his own family. I don't like the way he goes about his business or deals with his business and i compared him to armstrong in an unfavourable light. I'm not going to mock a guy for being abused as a child but that doesn't stop him being an eratic, rambling media whore.
now get me a fig roll..or anything but a rich tea

oh leave it out. the days when you can just waffle on pretending socialism has the rights to a fair and just society are long gone mate. this is a comic book analysis of the present economic crisis. and you thought that was an appropriate response to me suggesting the lefties should welcome armstrong earning money from his labour.

Leave it out is a really, really strong argument you have there, and why on earth doesn't socialism have any rights, and thirdly...the bar of soap is over there, Einstein? wrong? pish!

oh...one other thing? you call Lemond a media whore? in comparison to Lance that guy is a fucking angel...

well i reckon the socialist capitalist debate should be on another thread or in a pub or something so no more comments there. as for Lemond, well Phew, until oliver mentioned his abuse i'd never heard that, i don't follow lemond that closely but i read a lot of stuff about him and the way he treated his own family. I don't like the way he goes about his business or deals with his business and i compared him to armstrong in an unfavourable light. I'm not going to mock a guy for being abused as a child but that doesn't stop him being an eratic, rambling media whore.
now get me a fig roll..or anything but a rich tea

Well, Tim, your reading must have been fairly selective if you didn't hear about the abuse--that was a pretty big story around Landis' court case. And I'm really not sure how you can think that he's an 'erratic, rambling media whore'.

Of course it's very hard for him to put across what he knows; it's challenge because very few dare to speak out. He also has to be quite selective in picking out what he can make public out of what he knows, as without a doubt he knows much more than he can say. To me, he comes across as dedicated and sincere.

I don't know whether what he says is true, but I can't work out any reason why he would say it if it wasn't true. And more evidence confirming what he says keeps coming out, in all sorts of ways. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that continued. A lot is already out there and I'm sure andyp could recommend a bit of reading for all of us, but I have a feeling that in a few years' time, even sceptics of what he says now will be able to revise their judgement.

Yeah, but just look at Lance's pins. He's so hot. [/thread ends]

Nuff said

This is what Armstrong sees in his nightmares, big Greg fucking gunning for him.

You can say what you want about money, politics, motivation, attitude, personality, style; cycling (like just about every sport now) was more poetic when people weren't dangling a big fuckoff bag of cash over the finish line, where you'll be asked model for some god awful product that pollutes half the planet, paid to use some equipment made in some Eastern sweatshop by five year olds that have already lost half their limbs through industrial accidents, then whisked off on your first book signing tour before being forced to bribe your way round the sport to sustain your image.

The end.

The fact that clintsmoker has shoehorned this debate around to a debate on socialism shows merely that he's got some unresolved personal issues with ideology. I suppose there is a similarity though between Pinochet and Armstrong - both believe that the ends justify the means.

Christ, is this debate still going on? I thought we had agreed a while ago that he is not the massiah and is a very naughty boy.