No. of Recommendations: 0
http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/11/17/defending-lance-armstr...

Remember your outrage and why you detest a guy who was doing the same thing his predecessors had done legally just a few years before, and that all his adversaries were doing concurrently. Save some of your bile to curse the name of Laurent Fignon, the guy who won the tour in 1983 and 1984, the years before blood doping was banned. He admitted to using amphetamines and cortisol, but no one is retroactively calling for him to give back his prize.

If any rider in a UCI-sanctioned race wanted to deliver more oxygen to their working systems by strapping on an oxygen tank, they are free to do that, according to the World Doping Agency's banned list. So you can have an oxygen tank on your back but not in your recycled blood.

Imagine the unfair advantages a multi-millionaire celebrity like Lance Armstrong has over less-wealthy rivals: He can buy the best chefs, nutritionists, masseurs, physical therapists, movement specialists, physiologists, acupuncturists, chakra balancers. Lance could have a mountain chateau in Tourmalet, a climate-controlled bungalow in San Sebastian, a compound in Colorado for high-elevation training, and an oxygen-deprivation gym for cross training. He could have gadgets and gizmos to knead his sore calves when the servants retired for the evening, he could sleep in Michael Jackson's old hyperbaric chamber, he could extract the marrow of Heraclitus and spread it on toast points. With all the technology available in nutrition, medicine, components, bike frames, shoes, pointy, goofy-ass racing helmets, and every other element of cycling, everything could be deemed unfair, or unnatural!
________________________

The article goes on to suggest a free-market solution, that there be two cycling leagues, one for juicers and one for clean-living riders and see which one attracts the fans and sponsers.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kurt Loder and Kennedy, both of the old MTV days, now both work for Reason magazine?

What would have thought!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kurt Loder and Kennedy, both of the old MTV days, now both work for Reason magazine?

I've seen them both on Red Eye, Fox News' late-nite talk show. In fact, Kennedy was on just last week. She's got quite the sharp wit.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Quoted: "...he could sleep in Michael Jackson's old hyperbaric chamber,...

Jackson neither owned nor used a hyperbaric chamber. He purchased one and donated it to the burn unit that bore his name at the Brotman Medical Center before it closed in August 1987.

As a lark, he posed for a photo in the unit. The photo made its way to the National Enquirer. At that time, most news consumers were not nearly as skeptical as they are today, so "Michael Jackson sleeps in a hyperbaric chamber" became the negative news meme that (apparently) will never die.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, I've seen her on that Red Eye show as well. It doesn't look like she's aged on bit since her MTV days. It's strange, the change in her demeanor. Her on-camera persona during the MTV days was to be loud and obnoxious. She's not like that anymore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Her on-camera persona during the MTV days was to be loud and obnoxious.

That was to attract viewers like you.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The reason Armstrong doesn't deserve a defense is because he lied about his drug use for so long. The cover-up is always the sinful part of any malfeasance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My defense of Lance Armstrong is that in a sport dominated by dopers, Armstrong was far and away the best.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
My defense of Lance Armstrong is that in a sport dominated by dopers, Armstrong was far and away the best.
-------------------------------------------------
Exactly. They all did it, why strip him of all the titles, if they all didn't do it he'd still win, just with a slower time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ESPN has a series of documentaries called 30 for 30. About a month ago one was called 9.73*. The asterisk was for Ben Johnson testing positive while winning the 100 meters at the 1988 Olympics.

In the documentary, they interviewed a chemist who was responsible for drug testing. He said out of professional curiosity he started testing samples from over 20 years ago from previous Olympics. Because there are better tests today than way back then. He said he quit soon after starting and destroyed the results because a gross majority of samples were positive for something.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement