intellectualammo Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) I don't know much about him, but it's all over the news: (Reuters) - Lance Armstrong finally confessed to using performance enhancing drugs during his cycling career on Thursday, admitting he cheated to win all seven of his Tour de France titles. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-cycling-armstrong-admitting-idUSBRE90H04620130118 and now I quote from this article by Bernstein from 2005: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=11247&security=2661 hen Lance Armstrong rode through Paris on Sunday, crowning his unprecedented seventh consecutive victory in the grueling Tour de France, he put an exclamation mark on what is more than merely an extraordinary athletic career. By this time, the entire world knows Armstrong's story--his remarkable recovery from what was feared to be terminal cancer, his exhausting training program, his legendary endurance, his dauntless determination, his unequalled dominance of cycling’s premier event. Millions around the world properly celebrate him and his lofty accomplishments. But what explains the enormous interest in Armstrong's success--or that of any other sports hero? Why do sports fans set such a strong personal stake in the victories of their heroes? After all, little of any practical significance depends on such victories; a seventh Armstrong win won't get his fans a raise or help send their children to college. Why do sports have such an enormous, enduring appeal in human life? The answer lies in a rarely recognized aspect of sports: their moral significance. What athletic victories provide is a rare and crucial moral value: the sight of human achievement. Now what kind of a value are his victories? His moral character? Edited January 18, 2013 by intellectualammo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oso Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 He sued and won large amounts of money from people who attempted to expose the truth. Whatever the legitimacy of anti-doping rules or the magnitude of his achievements regardless of his doping, extorting money from people for telling the truth is unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 That is pretty messed up. It reminds me of this story that has been on ESPN all day. http://www.mercurynews.com/college-sports/ci_22396754/wilner-notre-dames-manti-teo-dead-girlfriend-hoax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Now what kind of a value are his victories? His moral character? The article is not about Lance Armstrong's moral character, it's about the moral significance of victory in sports. Since I doubt anyone's going to watch Tour de France coverage from 2000 now, and instead watched it back in 2000, the moral value of watching it should be estimated withing the context of knowledge we all had in 2000. It was an amazing, inspiring thing to watch (even for those of us poor Jan Ullrich fans). That context, at least back in 1999-2000, did not allow us to know that EVERYONE was doping. We already knew Pantani was probably dirty, but everyone else passed the same test he failed (haematocrit levels in the blood had to be under 50% - that was the only detectable sign for EPO use). By 2005, the story changed. As time went on, it became more and more obvious, to me at least, that watching the Tour is pointless, and I should find something better to do with my time. By then, for those of us actually watching the Tour rather than just writing articles about it, this article would've made little sense. Cheating, even if (especially if) pretty much everyone is doing it, obviously renders a sport value-less. Same is true for baseball in the same time period, by the way. The only difference is that the MLB never bothered to fully expose what was going on, the way cycling did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Oh bother character. In his prime he was still the best bicyclist in the world. ruveyn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) Oh bother character. In his prime he was still the best bicyclist in the world. It's road bicyclist, not bicyclist. Just like it's baseball or football, not just ball. And no, there's no evidence to suggest that he was the best in the world. He won because of his doping regimen, which was better than what his competitors had access to. Edited January 18, 2013 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 How could anyone expect any different behavior in a narcoculture where the solution to every conceiveable problem is finding just the right chemical to ingest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Now what kind of a value are his victories? His moral character? Personally, I have no opposition to the use of drugs in athletics any more than I oppose to use of nutrition practices. If someone does great on drugs, good for them. It doesn't change what a person did or accomplished. Moral character only comes into play to the extent the rules for the Tour de France are no drugs. Plus, he lied, which is the worst thing he did. Moralist, you act as though the drug use in and of itself is bad. I don't see why it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 It's road bicyclist, not bicyclist. Just like it's baseball or football, not just ball. And no, there's no evidence to suggest that he was the best in the world. He won because of his doping regimen, which was better than what his competitors had access to. His VO2 was tested medically. It was off the charts. That is a genuine reason why he could perform as he did. And no drug will increase one's VO2 capacity. It is an inborn characteristic. Lance Armstrong was a mutant. ruveyn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) His VO2 was tested medically. It was off the charts. That is a genuine reason why he could perform as he did. And no drug will increase one's VO2 capacity. It is an inborn characteristic. Lance Armstrong was a mutant. Lance Armstrong's highest documented VO2max was 82 liters/kg/min (in 1993), nowhere near the highest in the world, or even the cycling world. http://www.topendspo...ords/vo2max.htm The record holder is a young Norwegian cyclist, with 97.5 liters/kg/min. Another guy no one ever heard of named Kurt Asle Arvesen recorded 93 in 1997. Greg LeMond peaked at 92.5, Indurain 88, Hushovd 86. P.S. VO2 max is O2 intake during maximum aerobic exertion. Edited January 18, 2013 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) Moralist, you act as though the drug use in and of itself is bad. I don't see why it should be. I don't see why it should be as well. Edited January 18, 2013 by intellectualammo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Moralist, you act as though the drug use in and of itself is bad. I don't see why it should be. By drugs, do you mean the drugs Lance Armstrong took? The reasons why they're bad are pretty well documented. For instance, EPO causes hearth attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 By drugs, do you mean the drugs Lance Armstrong took? The reasons why they're bad are pretty well documented. For instance, EPO causes hearth attack. Yes, the ones he took. Oh, I'm not saying it's necessarily smart to take drugs, but to some it may be worth the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Yes, the ones he took. Oh, I'm not saying it's necessarily smart to take drugs, but to some it may be worth the risk. Yes, it's worth the risk, to earn millions of dollars. I'll give you that. But the question is, who's gonna pay those millions of dollars? As it stands, those millions of dollars are stolen, not earned. Athletes who are doping are participating in competitions that have clear rules against doping, and are marketed to fans as such. Yes, baseball did great in the 90s, by tolerating doping. Home runs went up, all kinds of records were broken, everyone was happy. Same thing happened in cycling. But it was all based on a lie. No one was open about the practice, or about officials turning a blind eye to it. The question is, why would it be worth it for anyone to create an endurance race in which participants can openly earn millions of dollars by taking EPO and risking death? Who would be interested in watching that? How would you market such an event? Hey folks, the betting starts now: odds are 1.5 to 1 that Lance Armstrong wins the race, 4 to 1 that he drops dead before the finish line. Family entertainment for all. And those would be the odds. Those are the lengths the guy who wins a cycling race in which everyone is free to increase their red blood cell count to whatever level they'd like, and take all the growth hormones they like during training, would have to go to. People who just dope relatively safely would not be able to compete with a guy who takes an even greater risk. It would be a game of chicken, not an endurance race. Craig24 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Why the confession on Oprah? Why did he confess? Did he confess because he thought he'd be found out and tried to save some face? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Why the confession on Oprah? Why did he confess? Did he confess because he thought he'd be found out and tried to save some face? I guess he finally figured out that whenever he would repeat the lie that he wasn't doping, everyone in the room knew for a fact that he was lying. Took him long enough, since this has been the case for quite a few years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Lance Armstrong's highest documented VO2max was 82 liters/kg/min (in 1993), nowhere near the highest in the world, or even the cycling world. http://www.topendspo...ords/vo2max.htm The record holder is a young Norwegian cyclist, with 97.5 liters/kg/min. Another guy no one ever heard of named Kurt Asle Arvesen recorded 93 in 1997. Greg LeMond peaked at 92.5, Indurain 88, Hushovd 86. P.S. VO2 max is O2 intake during maximum aerobic exertion. L.A. VO2 max is in the 99th percentile relative to the public at large. He is a super athlete whether or not he used performance enhancing drugs. Ordinary folks could not match Armstron's VO2 Max no matter what they swallowed. Armstrong is a mutant. He is (or was) an exceptional athlete. He just made sure he would be likely to win the Tour de France. ruveyn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Why the confession on Oprah? Why did he confess? Did he confess because he thought he'd be found out and tried to save some face? My guess would be that he is trying to save face. Everyone knew he was lying. Now that he admitted it, I bet he will plan to make a comeback and compete again without doping to prove that he is skilled and get his reputation back. That is from a PR standpoint. Another reason I bet is because it was compromising his health. Living a lie is not a healthy way to live life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 L.A. VO2 max is in the 99th percentile relative to the public at large. So is everyone else competing in the Tour de France. That doesn't make him the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 My guess would be that he is trying to save face. Everyone knew he was lying. Now that he admitted it, I bet he will plan to make a comeback and compete again without doping to prove that he is skilled and get his reputation back. Well he's banned for life. But he did try to make a comeback while clean. He finished 22nd, in 2010. He was competitive in the time trials, but fell apart on the mountains (which used to be his strong point, while doping). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Moralist, you act as though the drug use in and of itself is bad. I don't see why it should be. Drugs themselves are amoral. The reason people use drugs makes what they do good or bad.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Drugs themselves are amoral. The reason people use drugs makes what they do good or bad.. It is whether the drug is beneficial or detrimental to life that in determines if the act of taking them should be evaluated as moral or immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 It is whether the drug is beneficial or detrimental to life that in determines if the act of taking them should be evaluated as moral or immoral. ...and also if it is the proper use or abuse of even a beneficial drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.