Stuck on Repeats

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree with those categories, with one caveat. At Lance's level, isn't it all just a game of power? These people chose to shoot at the bear knowing they'd had better kill it. I applaud them for their selfless efforts and taking the risk to get out the truth, but were they really injured by Lance? Or were they injured as a result of deciding to attack a guy they knew could crush them and had no option but to viciously do so?

Lance had no option but to viciously crush his former soigneur, suing her and publicly denouncing her as a deranged prostitute, because she told the truth? Is that really the position you are articulating here?

"You honor, everyone knows organized crime is about power. Those who chose to rat out Mr. Capone knew they were shoooting at a charging grizzly. They knew that if they did not take him down in one shot, Mr. Capone would have no option but to ruthlessly destroy them, killing them and their family without mercy or remorse. You cannot know blame Mr. Capone for this, it would be absurd!"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Riders who he hounded out of the sport for telling the truth. Witnesses whom he sued and defamed and crushed because they told the truth. Talk to Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly.

big tits?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That'd be apt if he were talking logic. But he's talking emotion.

We're discussing sophisticated participants in a professional sport here. If someone's cheating, and the damages others are suffering as a result are great, the guys getting screwed have an obligation to remedy the situation. So do the regulators. In this case, the cheating was remedied too late.

I'm not suggesting Lance shouldn't lose his titles. He should, unquestionably. And he should be vilified. But it should be done within reasonable boundaries. The guys who finished on his heels (assuming they weren't doping) should get the wins, and the right to crow about getting fucked. Guys who were also doping? They have no right to say anything. They were on equal footing with Lance and lost. Guys hopelessly behind Lance? They didn't have a real chance, so when they say, "But for Lance's cheating, we'd have come in a few places ahead," I'd say, "Okay. So what? You're in seventh, as opposed to eighth. Don't try to elevate yourself by assuming the same posture as guys who came in second."

There's an emotional urge to brutally punish in these situations. It's understandable. But it's the same reflexive emotional thinking that has led us to zero-tolerance policies, three strikes laws, mandatory minimums, and years of stupid "tough on crime" political planks. When you put fairness, "justice," and righting wrongs at the top of the list of priorities, you go to war with 90% of the world. People are capable of endless cheating behaviors, and they always will be. Hell, one can make a good argument that negotiating, the center of all commerce, is nothing more than two guys try to cheat each other (the profit's always in getting someone to pay more for something than it cost you to acquire or provide).

We should punish people for cheating, and discourage it as much as possible. But when it happens in something like organized and regulated professional bike racing, or among sophisticated participants in business, outrage on behalf of all the potentially cheated is overkill. We need to look at who has a reasonable gripe (avoiding those with speculative damages) and try to make them whole. And only them.

This may offend the emotional sensibilities we all hold. But it's quite logical. In fact, its the basis for a lot of prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines. Crimes by the sophisticated against the unsophisticated are recommended for more severe punishment than crimes involving equally situated victims and perpetrators. And it is recommended that most frauds between businessmen on equal footing be left to the civil courts. Armstrong should be treated in this fashion. He's a dirtball, but let's be a little circumspect. He was one of a majority of cheaters in the event at issue, scrutinized at the time by his peers and regulators and... it's a fucking bike race. The guy is not a Sandusky.

Yo, what the fuck are you talking about? "Outrage on behalf of all the...cheated is overkill?" "It's the same reflexive emotional thinking that has led us to zero-tolerance policies, three strikes laws, mandatory minimums, and years of stupid 'tough on crime' political planks?" Honestly, so much of what you post is just pure nonsense dressed up in sideways litigator talk that it must keep people from arguing with you all the time. What the hell can be said in response to that? You have to be arguing some shit with some dude who I must have banished to the Land of Fu years ago, because what you're saying is completely nonresponsive to anything in my posts.

Lance Armstrong is a fucking cheat. He cheated his way into a bunch of cash and fame that he continually takes advantage of. He's the best of the cheats, sure. So, relative to other cheats, who fucking cares? I only care about those who weren't cheating. And outrage is the absolute least they're going to get from me and anyone else. Overkill? What the fuck?

I'm not arguing for these people to have standing to sue him individually on where they think they would have placed if Armstrong or every other cheater had been clean. I'm not looking for him to go to jail, unless there is a clear law that he broke and evidence that would convict him.

I am finding it extremely difficult to understand just what the fuck you're saying at all. Is it, "The guys who finished 8th, behind 7 guys in front of them who were all doping, should shut the fuck up and they don't even deserve our outrage because that would be overkill?" Because that makes no sense even under your retarded logic.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

big tits?

I heard that, after tough mountain stages in the Tour, Emma provided happy endings to all her massages.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Unless everyone does it, a completely even playing field is impossible? So even if the four teams behind Armstrong also doped as well, his crime would be just as heinous as if he'd been the only one doing it?

Yes. Because none of these races consist of only five teams. So, unless you're saying every single competitor was doping, you're not saying anything.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

People don't like to admit it, but "everybody around me was doing it too" is a decent defense. Won't exonerate anybody, but it's often, and justifiably, the difference between a nasty punishment and a slap on the wrist.

What law school did you go to? And what were you doing when they taught law there?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

ETA: I have never liked Lance Armstrong. I've always thought he was a humorless dick, and I always figured he cheated. That he's been caught, however, satisfies no desire to see things corrected.

Here's the famous sebby strawman. Now I know who the "I'll never apologize for believing America is great" politicians aim that line at. Where is anyone arguing to correct this stuff? Take away his (and everyone's who gets caught cheating) medals. Is that what you mean by satisfying a desire to see things corrected? If so, it's amazing how in the moment you live. "Cheat away! If you get caught after the competition is done, it means nothing to me!"

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There's nothing interesting about a cheater getting away with it, even at his level. And there's nothing interesting about seeing things "righted."

Whoa. That's deep. And it means absolutely nothing at the same time. That's quite an achievement.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The only interesting thing in any of it is seeing how people react to something that so commonly happens daily in endless ways. People cheat at high levels too. This is a revelation?

Another sebby strawman. No it's not a revelation. No one said it is. But what does that have to do with anything? If someone cheats, they should be exposed, ridiculed, criticized, and stripped of their achievements. Is that a revelation? Or is it just too uninteresting to even contemplate?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree with those categories, with one caveat. At Lance's level, isn't it all just a game of power? These people chose to shoot at the bear knowing they'd had better kill it. I applaud them for their selfless efforts and taking the risk to get out the truth, but were they really injured by Lance? Or were they injured as a result of deciding to attack a guy they knew could crush them and had no option but to viciously do so?

That did it. I refuse to interact with you on anything substantive on this board ever again. It is completely fucking pointless. Eighty five percent of the shit you post might as well have been written by a monkey.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Adder

Allow me to translate: Sidd you're a fucking luddite if ease of typing and battery life are your primary concerns.

Better?

This further confirms that I am a luddite. These are my two main concerns. The third one is screen resolution of lemonparty.org.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Talk to Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly.

Confession - I first read this as Baba O'Riley. I blame the Pete Townshend book tour in general, and his visit to Morning Joe in particular. (Apropos of nothing, did you know that Happy Jack is Paul McCartney's favorite Who song? I did not.)

I did learn a new word, though -- "soigneur". Thanks, Flower.

ETA - Hi, Adder!

[Hank Chinaski]

Notbob's confession has me thinking, and just so I won't lose any friends here, I want to admit that some of my Words With Friends wins over Evenodds were assisted by liberal consultation of a scrabble wordfinder page. The same is true of a game i lost to GGG. In my defense, GGG either used the wordfinder on EVERY WORD he played or he has a vocabulary that would likely make him not too pleasant to be around. No offense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Yo, what the fuck are you talking about? "Outrage on behalf of all the...cheated is overkill?"

Yes. This shit's common.

what you're saying is completely nonresponsive to anything in my posts.

You responded to me limiting the categories of people who could claim to be victims of Armstrong.

Lance Armstrong is a fucking cheat. He cheated his way into a bunch of cash and fame that he continually takes advantage of. He's the best of the cheats, sure. So, relative to other cheats, who fucking cares?

That's not what I said. My point was, he cheated sophisticated people, and among a bunch of other cheats. These are mitigating factors.

I only care about those who weren't cheating.

I don't care that much about any of them. I'm curious as to why you'd even be offended enough to care about me arguing with Flower about who has a legitimate gripe with Armstrong and who doesn't.

And outrage is the absolute least they're going to get from me and anyone else. Overkill? What the fuck?

A suspected cheater turns out to have been a cheat. This spurs you to outrage? The guy's a dirtball. If I were outraged by every dirtball I saw I'd have died of high blood pressure related maladies years ago.

I'm not arguing for these people to have standing to sue him individually on where they think they would have placed if Armstrong or every other cheater had been clean. I'm not looking for him to go to jail, unless there is a clear law that he broke and evidence that would convict him.

Neither am I.

I am finding it extremely difficult to understand just what the fuck you're saying at all. Is it, "The guys who finished 8th, behind 7 guys in front of them who were all doping, should shut the fuck up and they don't even deserve our outrage because that would be overkill?"

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The advantage doping provided has limits. If you're way, way back in the pack, at a distance experts could reasonably agree demonstrates that even sans dope, Lance would've beaten you, then you can't claim the dope was the difference. You'd have lost anyway. You can generally complain, but yours is a second rate gripe. The non-dopers who finished close enough for dope to have been the deciding factor? Those guys unquestionably have a case to be outraged.

Because that makes no sense even under your retarded logic.

You're confusing emotion with logic. How else does one reach "outrage" over a bike race?

TM[/QUOTE]

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes. This shit's common.



You responded to me limiting the categories of people who could claim to be victims of Armstrong.



That's not what I said. My point was, he cheated sophisticated people, and among a bunch of other cheats. These are mitigating factors.



I don't care that much about any of them. I'm curious as to why you'd even be offended enough to care about me arguing with Flower about who has a legitimate gripe with Armstrong and who doesn't.



A suspected cheater turns out to have been a cheat. This spurs you to outrage? The guy's a dirtball. If I were outraged by every dirtball I saw I'd have died of high blood pressure related maladies years ago.



Neither am I.



Actually, it makes perfect sense. The advantage doping provided has limits. If you're way, way back in the pack, at a distance experts could reasonably agree demonstrates that even sans dope, Lance would've beaten you, then you can't claim the dope was the difference. You'd have lost anyway. You can generally complain, but yours is a second rate gripe. The non-dopers who finished close enough for dope to have been the deciding factor? Those guys unquestionably have a case to be outraged.



You're confusing emotion with logic. How else does one reach "outrage" over a bike race?

Yep. Okay.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes. This shit's common.



You responded to me limiting the categories of people who could claim to be victims of Armstrong.



That's not what I said. My point was, he cheated sophisticated people, and among a bunch of other cheats. These are mitigating factors.



I don't care that much about any of them. I'm curious as to why you'd even be offended enough to care about me arguing with Flower about who has a legitimate gripe with Armstrong and who doesn't.



A suspected cheater turns out to have been a cheat. This spurs you to outrage? The guy's a dirtball. If I were outraged by every dirtball I saw I'd have died of high blood pressure related maladies years ago.



Neither am I.



Actually, it makes perfect sense. The advantage doping provided has limits. If you're way, way back in the pack, at a distance experts could reasonably agree demonstrates that even sans dope, Lance would've beaten you, then you can't claim the dope was the difference. You'd have lost anyway. You can generally complain, but yours is a second rate gripe. The non-dopers who finished close enough for dope to have been the deciding factor? Those guys unquestionably have a case to be outraged.



You're confusing emotion with logic. How else does one reach "outrage" over a bike race?

Blah, blah, blah. I want you to respond to the point about how 85% of your stuff could have been posted by a monkey.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Notbob's confession has me thinking, and just so I won't lose any friends here, I want to admit that some of my Words With Friends wins over Evenodds were assisted by liberal consultation of a scrabble wordfinder page. The same is true of a game i lost to GGG. In my defense, GGG either used the wordfinder on EVERY WORD he played or he has a vocabulary that would likely make him not too pleasant to be around. No offense.

This is how you play the game. Confess and, in your confession, point out how someone better than you cheated even more than you did. Now you're a hero and will be "punished" for your cheating with a short suspension during the off-season.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Notbob's confession has me thinking, and just so I won't lose any friends here, I want to admit that some of my Words With Friends wins over Evenodds were assisted by liberal consultation of a scrabble wordfinder page. The same is true of a game i lost to GGG. In my defense, GGG either used the wordfinder on EVERY WORD he played or he has a vocabulary that would likely make him not too pleasant to be around. No offense.

False dichotomy. Have you considered I might both have capaciously consulted the wordfinder and have a talent for palaver most rare and recherche?

It's not the word, it's the placement.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Riders who he hounded out of the sport for telling the truth. Witnesses whom he sued and defamed and crushed because they told the truth. Talk to Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly.

(Using this as a jumping off point, not a direct response.)

FWIW, this is one of the best articles I've ever read on doping: http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html