|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
On Mar 1, 9:47*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
Greg is right the way Lafferty is right. *They are all in fact dopers. *However, both Greg and Lafferty make accusations without evidence, or with ridiculous evidence. *An argument that uses fallacious or unprincipled logic (or no logic) to reach a conclusion that happens to be true is not "right." Lafferty convinced me that Lemond doped. But Laff was still glad to see Lemond's performances IRT Lance doping. "We knew they were doping". --D-y |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
In article
, --D-y wrote: On Mar 1, 3:03Â*am, Frederick the Great wrote: In article , Â*Ryan Cousineau wrote: On Feb 27, 8:34Â*pm, --D-y wrote: On Feb 27, 6:52Â*pm, Geraard Spergen wrote: On Feb 27, 4:47Â*pm, --D-y wrote: Thank you. Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics rider. At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something. --D-y- Hide quoted text - He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of Americans. That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad. He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really* accomplished. The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr. Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won more. DUH! Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..." quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced their potential victories), but so what? "Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes more, both reputationally and financially. And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost certainly right. So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not them, it's you*. *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way. Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the like-minded, which is simply sad. **rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose of lulz. I can respect that, sort of. Many accusations here. Even though you acknowledge lulz, most of the time you do not get the joke. You can always tell a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much. One last try??? "Admire the deeds, not the person". Does not compute. The deeds comprise the man. And another (I'm a sucker for our Friends to the North): As a friend who used to be on a "team" and had a "record" (and has a IMHO healthy perspective) once said: "They're just people who happen to be able to ride a bike fast". So long as they just ride a bike fast and do not put themselves in the public eye. Recently Tyler Farrar made an intemperate remark. Afterward he said (paraphrasing) that we all say intemperate things, but he has the advantage that his are broadcast immediately to the whole, wide world. -- Old Fritz |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
On Feb 29, 3:38*pm, --D-y wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:23*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr. I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted? I'll grant you that Lance had more will to win, in so many ways (Lance focused exclusively on racing the TdF in a way that LeMond did not, and I hadn't heard the drove-all-night story). But the most obvious "virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury- shortened athletic career ever gets this theme. Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty" stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road. High road? Omerta is the high road? The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor. (However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or should have anticipated) the actual outcome. He may have regarded the present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I can't reasonably assume the worst of motives). I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is. *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way. Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the like-minded, which is simply sad. Another: "Pick your fights carefully". Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not impressive. Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for saying the Corvair was dangerous. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
On 3/5/2012 8:13 PM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
But the most obvious "virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from shotgunning. He has repeatedly claimed 1985 as a virtual win, and he does so to this day. That's nothing other than dishonest and is the foundation for the crap he takes here. He can only sell that in North America and only because his friend Kent Gordis ****ed up the TV coverage here. F |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
On 3/5/2012 9:13 PM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:38 pm, wrote: On Feb 29, 3:23 pm, Ryan wrote: The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr. I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted? I'll grant you that Lance had more will to win, in so many ways (Lance focused exclusively on racing the TdF in a way that LeMond did not, and I hadn't heard the drove-all-night story). But the most obvious "virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury- shortened athletic career ever gets this theme. Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty" stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road. High road? Omerta is the high road? The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor. (However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or should have anticipated) the actual outcome. He may have regarded the present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I can't reasonably assume the worst of motives). I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is. *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way. Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the like-minded, which is simply sad. Another: "Pick your fights carefully". Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not impressive. Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for saying the Corvair was dangerous. Only if GL rand for POTUS and drew enough votes from BO so that MR got in. S. -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
On Mar 5, 8:13*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
But the most obvious "virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury- shortened athletic career ever gets this theme. Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty" stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road. High road? Omerta is the high road? Touché, but only in admiration for your rhetorical skill. Because "mitochondrial myopathy" that Lemond allegedly suffered from can be a tell-tale for steroid use. That's "doper profile" and frankly, people who live in glass houses and have MD father-in-laws who are "blood specialists" probably shouldn't be throwing stones even if they don't have urine or blood samples stored and ready for retro-testing and they know their opponents do. And there very much is a "high road" in Omerta. Indurain seems to have taken it. "Silence" is maybe the most direct, and even "easiest" path, but failing that, Lemond could have been a whole lot smarter in what he said and still been "truthful". The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor. There's truth whole truth nothing but the truth and then there's practicality, consideration of consequences, and even "tact". I'd go so far as to say that if Greg wanted to take on Lance Armstrong, he could have been a whole lot more effective than he was, by being at least a little bit clever about it. Call it "high road" or whatever, the object is to get the peanut butter out of the jar without getting it all over your hands instead of on the bread, you know what I mean? (However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or should have anticipated) the actual outcome. Totally with you there. The side-stories about his alcohol use didn't help him any; he didn't admit having a problem there but it seems he may well have had a lack of control on that front, also. He may have regarded the present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I can't reasonably assume the worst of motives). Canadian got nothing to do with it, eh? Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not impressive. Not mad, per se. Disappointed. Spoiled kid --- grownup with no sense of propriety, and no "nous", either. Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for saying the Corvair was dangerous. Ralph Nader made his bones by killing the Corvair, right about the time that Chevrolet fixed the handling problem, with the '65 models. Not to mention, he could have "picked on" lots of other early-to-late 60's cars. Like the Volkswagon bug, or even worse, the VW van. Give me a break... Um, "short but sweet": Lemond stepped on his dick, big time. --D-y |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
He has repeatedly claimed 1985 as a virtual win, and he does
so to this day. That's nothing other than dishonest and is the foundation for the crap he takes here. I lived in France at the time and it seemed obvious to me that Lemond would have won in 1985 if he hadn't worked for Hinault. I remember Hinault on TV right after the last stage saying "next year it's Greg's turn" (though of course he changed his mind later), basically acknowledging Lemond's sacrifice. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
Only if GL rand for POTUS and drew enough votes from BO so that MR got in. Shirley you could work something about Romney's penis size into that. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed: LeMond was the greatest
On 3/6/2012 7:23 PM, Bertrand wrote:
He has repeatedly claimed 1985 as a virtual win, and he does so to this day. That's nothing other than dishonest and is the foundation for the crap he takes here. I lived in France at the time and it seemed obvious to me that Lemond would have won in 1985 if he hadn't worked for Hinault. I remember Hinault on TV right after the last stage saying "next year it's Greg's turn" (though of course he changed his mind later), basically acknowledging Lemond's sacrifice. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...n&dmode=source F |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
911 Is the Greatest Lie Ever Sold | harbinger | Australia | 16 | June 2nd 06 06:24 AM |
The Greatest News Ever! | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | March 28th 05 08:23 AM |
The Greatest News Ever! | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | March 27th 05 05:30 PM |
The Greatest News Ever! | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | March 27th 05 04:04 AM |
The Greatest News Ever! | [email protected] | General | 0 | March 27th 05 02:53 AM |