Lance Armstrong

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:29 pm

spot;1473044 wrote: I'm not sure either reason is an excuse for refusing to pick anyone regardless of gender if they have the ability to compete at that level. The fact that, if few can, then few can, shouldn't excuse the forcible exclusion of any who are actually able. If there's a good female footballer or cricketer, for example, the current league rules exclude her from competing in what is by the rule-book an all-male team even though she might add to its performance. It's an outmoded bias.You mean if males were allowed to compete in female-only leagues?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:11 am

Ahso!;1473059 wrote: You mean if males were allowed to compete in female-only leagues?

No, I mean if there were no gender requirement in the league concerned.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:36 am

spot;1473069 wrote: No, I mean if there were no gender requirement in the league concerned.I know what you meant, I was toying with you by turning it on its head. If there were no barriers males would then dominate almost all physical sporting activities with the exception of a smattering of females here and there. That's not to say females are left out of the pettiness of sporting activities all together; there's pool, and chess and the like to which mixed gender competition works quite well.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:06 am

Ahso!;1473071 wrote: I know what you meant, I was toying with you by turning it on its head. If there were no barriers males would then dominate almost all physical sporting activities with the exception of a smattering of females here and there. That's not to say females are left out of the pettiness of sporting activities all together; there's pool, and chess and the like to which mixed gender competition works quite well.

I actually think it's possible women perform less well at the top because they don't face the same competition, but I won't insist. However, let's assume in a league sport that the first quartile of women can only play as well as the second quartile of men, and the second quartile of women can only play as well as the third quartile of men, and so on down the league. It means women can be easily assimilated, and play just as well as the men, in all leagues except the first where their numbers would be fewer. That's a lot of assimilation. I still think that in sports which require quick calculation and fast reactions - like cricket, for example - women might well end up the better players on average if today's institutional discrimination was lifted.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:17 am

spot;1473073 wrote: I actually think it's possible women perform less well at the top because they don't face the same competition, but I won't insist. However, let's assume in a league sport that the first quartile of women can only play as well as the second quartile of men, and the second quartile of women can only play as well as the third quartile of men, and so on down the league. It means women can be easily assimilated, and play just as well as the men, in all leagues except the first where their numbers would be fewer. That's a lot of assimilation. I still think that in sports which require quick calculation and fast reactions - like cricket, for example - women might well end up the better players on average if today's institutional discrimination was lifted.That appears reasonable. The breaking point in a consumer society such as mine comes when attendance numbers are called into question. Most members of my culture prefer the top echelon only. Though I suspicious that female sports are actually doing quite well financially now.

In my mid twenties I lived with a young married couple who would wrestle together hardcore. They were both very fit but they did no holding back.I found it unattractive myself but they obviously thought differently.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:18 am

How can it be said that women don't perform so well at the top when they are barred by an outdated ruling system that prohibits them from proving otherwise. Before women were allowed the vote it was claimed that they wouldn't be able to vote responsibly because they lacked the intelligence to judge the issues & would vote with their emotions. Then the same was said about women standing for election, then came Maggie (well, there have to be exceptions to the rules, I suppose). There was a time, not so long ago, where Blacks in America were considered less than 2nd class citizens & were prohibited from even using the same buses as Whites. They now have a Black President who, in my opinion, has more than proved himself. If someone is not allowed to try for the heights, they are never going to be able to prove their abillity to achieve, or even excel in them.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:26 am

FourPart;1473076 wrote: How can it be said that women don't perform so well at the top when they are barred by an outdated ruling system that prohibits them from proving otherwise. Before women were allowed the vote it was claimed that they wouldn't be able to vote responsibly because they lacked the intelligence to judge the issues & would vote with their emotions. Then the same was said about women standing for election, then came Maggie (well, there have to be exceptions to the rules, I suppose). There was a time, not so long ago, where Blacks in America were considered less than 2nd class citizens & were prohibited from even using the same buses as Whites. They now have a Black President who, in my opinion, has more than proved himself. If someone is not allowed to try for the heights, they are never going to be able to prove their abillity to achieve, or even excel in them.Hormones, I suspect, might have something to do with it. I heard someone say the X chromosome is in decline anyway.

Many of the more physically demanding sporting activities were invented by men for men, don't forget. Had they been designed for or by females they might look somewhat different and be less violent too.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:28 am

Remember that Poetry used to be one of the events in the Olympic Games.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:45 am

FourPart;1473079 wrote: Remember that Poetry used to be one of the events in the Olympic Games.

And it's Rupert Graves leading the field, five lengths clear of Sylvia Plath with Ted Hughes snorting along in third place after which we have an obviously unfit Auden, still smoking his pipe but declaiming in a very Eliot-like nasal whinge, 25 to one the rest.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:14 am

Bryn Mawr;1417187 wrote: Too true - he's admitted to lying and cheating throughout his career and then says he deserves to be allowed back into the sport! Why Sir, you are a liar and a cheat and the sport has no place for you.
I note the chap's still insistent that he'll be excused eventually: In JK Rowling's bestselling series, evil wizard Voldemort is such a fearsome character no-one in the magic community dares utter his name.

"I'm the one everybody wants to pretend never lived," said the 43-year-old, who has previously said he should be forgiven for doping and lying. "But that won't be the case forever because it can't be the case forever."

BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong says he is treated like evil wizard Voldemort

In your particular case, Mr Armstrong, I would not put money on that. It certainly can be, and it ought.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:49 am

spot;1480498 wrote:

In your particular case, Mr Armstrong, I would not put money on that. It certainly can be, and it ought.

I'd like to see banning from a sport for cheating used more often and more permanently. It sends a good message to young people.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:36 am

This character sounds an arrogant big-headed idiot. Such a good example to youngsters - not. How dare he expect people to forgive his actions, cheating, lying, just to make sure he beats everybody else. What a sad person. There is no point in taking part in a competition if you have to cheat and lie to get any where near winning. What satisfaction can a decent person gain if they can only win by cheating ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:41 am

G#Gill;1480506 wrote: What satisfaction can a decent person gain if they can only win by cheating ?

I think the twenty million dollars a year sponsorship money may have had an influence.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:16 am

Typical money grabbing leech.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:50 pm

Perhaps there should be a League of Sports which has a "No Holds Barred" policy, where they can use whatever performance enhancing drugs they like, make whatever fouls they like. In short, anything goes. At least in that way everyone would be playing on a level playing ground, and no-one would be under any false illusions as to where their performance really comes from.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:16 pm

There used to be a category of sportsperson called a Professional, who took money from those who wanted her to compete in their event or to endorse their product. This was in contrast to the Amateur who prized her status above mere pelf. Nobody could compete in the Olympic Games without Amateur credentials. These days there is a small remnant who retain Amateur status but they're pretty much ignored.

Now we can write it from a future perspective...

There used to be a category of sportsperson called dopers, who took prize-money for winning events or for endorsing products. This was in contrast to the drug-free athlete who prized her status above mere performance. Nobody could compete in the Olympic Games if they were detected doping. These days there is a small remnant who perform without drug enhanced performance boosters but they're pretty much ignored.

There was, for a while, a "Professional Circuit" where competitors were paid but mainstream amateur events were more popular. The switch came when the athletes who counted switched to the professional circuit. It happened in boxing, in tennis, in golf, athletics, it happened all over. The previously Amateur contests had to drop their ban on Professionals in order to retain an audience. I expect the same will happen in the next decade as far as doping is concerned, all it will take is a promoter buying athletes. Packer did that in cricket and destroyed the concept of the Gentleman Player. One rich promoter, that's all it will take. Someone with sports channels and a lot of spare cash.

Rupert Murdoch or his spawn, for example.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:48 pm

:rolleyes: :p

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:08 am

spot;1480515 wrote: There used to be a category of sportsperson called a Professional, who took money from those who wanted her to compete in their event or to endorse their product. This was in contrast to the Amateur who prized her status above mere pelf. Nobody could compete in the Olympic Games without Amateur credentials. These days there is a small remnant who retain Amateur status but they're pretty much ignored.

Now we can write it from a future perspective...

There used to be a category of sportsperson called dopers, who took prize-money for winning events or for endorsing products. This was in contrast to the drug-free athlete who prized her status above mere performance. Nobody could compete in the Olympic Games if they were detected doping. These days there is a small remnant who perform without drug enhanced performance boosters but they're pretty much ignored.

There was, for a while, a "Professional Circuit" where competitors were paid but mainstream amateur events were more popular. The switch came when the athletes who counted switched to the professional circuit. It happened in boxing, in tennis, in golf, athletics, it happened all over. The previously Amateur contests had to drop their ban on Professionals in order to retain an audience. I expect the same will happen in the next decade as far as doping is concerned, all it will take is a promoter buying athletes. Packer did that in cricket and destroyed the concept of the Gentleman Player. One rich promoter, that's all it will take. Someone with sports channels and a lot of spare cash.

Rupert Murdoch or his spawn, for example.

Depressing, but true, I fear.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:23 am

I just hope that the authorities stand firm on the decision to ban for life that cheat Armstrong. It gobsmacked me that he should have the audacity and arrogance to even ask to be re-instated and be allowed to compete in cycling again.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:32 pm

G#Gill;1483329 wrote: I just hope that the authorities stand firm on the decision to ban for life that cheat Armstrong. It gobsmacked me that he should have the audacity and arrogance to even ask to be re-instated and be allowed to compete in cycling again.

If he is re-instated, it'll give the lie to the phrase "Cheats never prosper".

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:46 pm

This is the chap who rode one of the Tour de France stages last week, a day early?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:05 am

Saint_;1480503 wrote: I'd like to see banning from a sport for cheating used more often and more permanently. It sends a good message to young people.

Quite right, Saint. A strong message needs to be sent to those that would seek unfair advantage. Time to clamp down on this "well, everyone else cheats, so why not me too" attitude. Cheats and liars are not good role-models.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:59 am

Is he the one that got around the Drugs Rules by transfusing himself with his own hyper oxygenated blood?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:16 am

FourPart;1483618 wrote: Is he the one that got around the Drugs Rules by transfusing himself with his own hyper oxygenated blood?

Not sure whether he used "blood-boosting" (hyper-oxygenating) or some other performance booster, such as HGH (human growth hormone) to enhance strength/endurance.

What I do know is that he cheated, and now wants to be allowed to compete again. Talk about "brass neck"!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:34 am

All I know is that someone transfused themselves with their own hyper-oxygenated blood because there wasn't anything in the rules against it.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:43 am

FourPart;1483621 wrote: All I know is that someone transfused themselves with their own hyper-oxygenated blood because there wasn't anything in the rules against it.

Here's the Wiki on "blood-boosting" and doping....Sorry it's so ruddy large!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:14 am

Lord Coe has made a frothing attack on the publication of athletics test data by the Sunday Times. No evidence of doping, says Lord Coe. Outrageous assault. Let me find the quotes... "The use of that database, however it got into their possession, displayed either breathtaking ignorance or a level of malevolence around a set of readings you simply cannot extrapolate beyond," Coe, who is standing in the IAAF presidential election on 19 August, added.

"The idea that my sport sat there either covering up wrongdoing or just being incompetent could not be wider of the mark."

BBC Sport - Doping allegations a 'declaration of war' on athletics - Lord Coe

You have a dead simple way of cleaning your sport's reputation, and that of all the other Olympic sports. Make the test database open to inspection, all of it, the whole history of test data from as far back as testing goes. You can anonymize it simply enough. Let disinterested journalists test what you claim, rather than hiding the statistical evidence and refusing to allow independent analysis of the data.