Lance Strongarm: Hero or Villain?

Steve:

I agree with much of what you are saying, but ... what organization didn't want LA to take performance enhancing drugs? It can't be the same organization that was helping him avoid the tests.

You are describing a hypothetical organization that doesn't exist.

Go back and read Tygart's statement. Who was feeding LA the inside information? Inside of what?

Yes, and LA might have gone home and enjoyed Pro-Wrestling as a fan. It is quite the spectacle.

regards,
Fred

Post 41

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 9:35am

Dan:

re: "All the while reaping the benefits of this fake image he had created."

I'd agree with you fully, if I believed for a second that it was LA or even all of the riders in the sport who was a] creating the fake image and b] benefiting from it.

I'd ask you to do the same thing I just asked Steve to do: go back and read Tygart's lament.

Tygart was also doping, and even acknowledged 'assuming everyone engaged in the spectacle was doping.'

His lament was not that LA was cheating by violating the ban; his lament was that 'from inside' (inside of what?) LA was receiving assistance to beat the testing.

Where is there evidence in any of this of an organization whose intent was to ban doping?

And as for fans believing that steroids and such has ever left sports since the 50s, I can only scratch my head and wonder: where does that belief possibly come from? It does not come from any evidence. HS, College, and PRO teams all suddenly grew in average size after the 'ban.'

"Gee, HS teams look like College teams used to look...and College terams look like PRO teams used to look...and PRO teams look like those freaks from Madden-2012.

Who is it that believes that -sudden- observation is the result of better nutrition?

If the ban was actually a ban, then ... wouldn't all those teams at those levels have gotten smaller after the ban, given the stated reasons for the ban?

What do fans believe is the cause of that? Better (sudden) nutrition? I've heard people make that actual argument. Not here, but elsewhere.

regards,
Fred

Post 42

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 9:42am

Maybe part of this is the word 'hero.' Perhaps LA pursuing his own interests, participating in what those involved know is a Pro-Wrestling like spectacle of sellable human augmentation, the use of the word 'hero' is inflammatory(no pun intended on the topic of steroids.)

Should we instead be grateful to LA for illuminating the truth? If the result of all this focus is a look at the ethics behind the ban, then I say yes.

I'm not saying I think that is largely what is happening.

We are evaluating this issue on the basis of the world as we wish it was, with bicycling associations intent on enforcing bans against cheaters. In that world, I'd agree with the majority here in a heartbeat.

I mainly disagree that depicts this event. Where is that association in this actual instance? It is not found in Tygart's testimony about 'inside' information being handed to LA to help him beat the testing.

regards,
Fred

Post 43

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 9:52am

NCAA rules.

They test only during the season.

They test -at- the Bowl Games.

If they actually wanted to ban steroids, they would test during the off-off season.

It is clear evidence that they don't -really- want to ban steroids; they want to appear like they want to ban steroids, and if a side effect of appearing to want to do that is, chasing away those pesky doctors from the arenas, then so be it; it's win-win--except for those taking the elevated risks as a result of the sham -ban.

As is par for the course, the opposite of the surface intent.

regards,
Fred

Post 44

Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 3:29pm