Armstrong charged and banned

[rich p]

another excellent piece de-bunking a lot of the smoke and mirrors from Science in Sport

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

 

[lukesdad]

You even have yourself on ignore?

You should try it Adrian

 

[thom]

Most people I know read only that part of the press which aligns with their political outlook. To me, that's the press version of 'ignore'.

Personally I think some of the opinions aren't about balance. The actual debate has moved on for a lot of people and the ignore button is an actual intelligent way to filter out a point of view that I don't need to engage with from now on.
You have 'a point' in general but you know, it's one thing reading the Telegraph to get balance, it's another thing reading something from further along the right wing spectrum...

 

[Red Light]

I've toyed with the idea, but haven't done it.

A few people have posted that they're ignoring me (a wise move), but I've yet to hit the button. In fact I'm not sure how to do it.

But... (and this is as close to a point as I get) is there not some Low-Cal insipidness to an online forum without the bits you dislike?

I watch large people buying Diet Coke and wonder whether they wouldn't be happier to have the full smack, but slightly less of it.

I like my forums full-sugar. Even if that sugar has a little jalapeno and maybe some sole-of-shoe unpleasantness in it. This is not a directed barb, just an indication of my distaste for some of the views I read. But I'd rather read them than not.

For the same reason, I occasionally buy and enjoy the Daily Telegraph and sit in a comfortable chair getting angry with the editorial.

Most people I know read only that part of the press which aligns with their political outlook. To me, that's the press version of 'ignore'.

+1. Plus the threads on helmets, Armstrong or Current Affairs and Debates nearly always get rather fractious and heated and if you ingnored all the posters in there you disagree with you would take out also a lot of useful content about the prime (albeit declining) purpose of CC which is about bikes and cycling. My view is that if you can't stand the heat of those debates you should stay out of them rather than ignoring posters because they are saying things you don't like. I have only one person on my ignore list and they were someone who tried to carry over those fractious debates into the rest of the forum and it was easier to ignore them so I wasn't tempted to reply. But other than that as Voltaire/Evelyn Beatrice Hall said "I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[smutchin]

another excellent piece de-bunking a lot of the smoke and mirrors from Science in Sport

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

Yes, an excellent piece.

d.

 

[johnr]

another excellent piece de-bunking a lot of the smoke and mirrors from Science in Sport

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

I couldn't open it. Any ideas?

 

[thom]

I couldn't open it. Any ideas?

yhm - pmed the text to you

 

[rich p]

I couldn't open it. Any ideas?

Not really! It works for me. Maybe Thom has though.

 

[86TDFWinner]

He's denied it.... but more importantly, he's never tested positive for it !

And there's never been 1 CREDIBLE source that says he has, that's important too.

 

[Noodley]

I tried that, but it just left an empty thread

You'd still have had my posts surely?

 

[lukesdad]

Only the private ones, and thats the only place you must call me Shirley

 

[ufkacbln]

Do you really believe USADA give a feck how many TDF titles big tex holds ?

Enough to make fatuous and untrue claims that they have stripped him of them when in reality they have neither done so, or are able to do so?

 

[ufkacbln]

I love it when someone puts "But perhaps you think" and then follows up with some arbitrary tosh!

As for the Foundation not funding research - its first item on their agenda apparently:
"The Foundation is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for those
living with, through and beyond cancer by supporting scientific research, educational community
programs and public awareness efforts."

Talking about fighting and actually fighting are 2 different things. Considering the report writing and talking the Foundation has a fantastic burn rate of cash. LAF has a lot of buzzword-compliant statements but is light on actual help for cancer sufferers.

Interesting you raise Macmillan - they provide actual health care! Real actual get-yer-hands-dirty-assistance. Not a report or education-program. They actually provide financial support too. Something LAF doesn't do.

If you have anything else, let me know. Always happy to make the effort and find the facts for you.

But is there any proof of Rich P's allegations that Armstrong has been "filling his pockets"?

If true then the implications that Armstrong has been embezzling or misappropriating funds is something even darker, and these claims need to be substantiated.... it would be interesting to see the evidence behind the claims.

 

[david k]

And there's never been 1 CREDIBLE source that says he has, that's important too.

do we know that?

 

[yello]

Enough to make fatuous and untrue claims that they have stripped him of them when in reality they have neither done so, or are able to do so?

Strictly speaking correct no doubt but somewhat splitting hairs in my opinion. As the body in charge of the results management process, they have done all they have been required (and are empowered) to do. What happens after that ought be a formality.