Jump to content

Who is Lappartient?


SwissVan

Recommended Posts

OK well then I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post below:

No need to be sorry but you did misinterpret that post, read it again. I said he seems more worried about Lance than the dopers currently riding in the peloton. 

 

I am not asking you to agree, or trying to convince you. Its just my observation and opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

LOL man. I have honestly laughed at the last few threads and debates you were part of. I admire your contributions and critical thinking. But there were a few red herrings and straw man attacks. ( I am not going going through the effort of quoting examples.)

You don't need to, I know where they are ;)

 

What you deem a straw man attack argument, might be my idea of an attempt to shed a different perspective on things. Just remember that 5+4 = 9 but so does 7+2, just because we see things differently does not mean that either of us are wrong  :thumbup: But I am glad to hear that you dont take this as seriously as many others.

 

Anyway, I have made my point, if you dont agree that ok. I cannot wait for Lappies to do some good work, so that I can come back and say, "well well, he is doing something about the stuff that I feel is important too" :)

Edited by Patchelicious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expect Apartheid era criminals to be prosecuted now if they didn't stand forward before the truth and reconciliation commission. 

 

If the crime was committed last year, 5 years ago, last week does that make the crimes committed today more important?

 

Lance might have amazing insight into the sport as well as a charizmatic view on the world, but he is a horrible, lying cheating criminal.

 

Imagine Ted Katzynski was asked to attend a world peace initiative? Would the likes of Obama be 'ag, well, there are other more relevant terrorists out there, so why should I worry about Ted...' 

No.. he would say, dam you, this guy is a disgrace and I will not abide this... 

 

Lance Armstrong is a disgrace. Make no mistake. I'm sure Ted could also give amazing insight into terrorism, it doesn't make his past transgressions less unacceptable because, well, they are in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....

 

Lance might have amazing insight into the sport as well as a charizmatic view on the world, but he is a horrible, lying cheating criminal.

 

.....

 

Having followed many of LA Tours on Supersport I became a big supporter.

 

 

The one thing that I never understood - he was tested OFTEN, yet he passed the tests as per the regulations AT THAT TIME.

 

 

I have since learnt more about "systematic doping" ....

 

 

QUESTION - was "systematic doping" described in the rules AT THAT TIME ?  Did he knowingly break the rules.  OR, did he (and many others) exploit a loophole in the rules at the time ?

 

 

 

For those that followed F1 racing - Michael Schumacher KNEW the rules, and he often used this knowledge to his advantage, even winning a race by taking a penalty stop during the very last lap.  In fact, some of the "stunts" he pulled resulted in rules being amended over the years.  But knowing the rules, and using it to his advantage certainly did not make him a cheat ....

 

 

Thus my question - did LA act outside the rules at the time when he used systematic doping ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy shibbles man.

 

There are ex dopers, dodgy doctors and rotten apples all over cycling and this is where Lappies chooses to make a stand? Reeeediculous.

Lappies Labuschagne. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to, I know where they are ;)

 

What you deem a straw man attack argument, might be my idea of an attempt to shed a different perspective on things. Just remember that 5+4 = 9 but so does 7+2, just because we see things differently does not mean that either of us are wrong  :thumbup: But I am glad to hear that you dont take this as seriously as many others.

 

Anyway, I have made my point, if you dont agree that ok. I cannot wait for Lappies to do some good work, so that I can come back and say, "well well, he is doing something about the stuff that I feel is important too" :)

Come on man, we all know 5+4 = 54 and 7+2 = 72. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having followed many of LA Tours on Supersport I became a big supporter.

 

 

The one thing that I never understood - he was tested OFTEN, yet he passed the tests as per the regulations AT THAT TIME.

 

 

I have since learnt more about "systematic doping" ....

 

 

QUESTION - was "systematic doping" described in the rules AT THAT TIME ?  Did he knowingly break the rules.  OR, did he (and many others) exploit a loophole in the rules at the time ?

 

 

 

For those that followed F1 racing - Michael Schumacher KNEW the rules, and he often used this knowledge to his advantage, even winning a race by taking a penalty stop during the very last lap.  In fact, some of the "stunts" he pulled resulted in rules being amended over the years.  But knowing the rules, and using it to his advantage certainly did not make him a cheat ....

 

 

Thus my question - did LA act outside the rules at the time when he used systematic doping ?

Umm... dude, he took EPO.

 

How he took it is irrelevant.

 

He has admitted to taking EPO. 

 

Did he cheat? Yes...... yes he did. But that is a thread for another year (if you had a time machine) 

 

More on the issue, I see his podcast has been banned from some races... http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/colorado-classic-shuts-door-lance-armstrong-doping-ban-345828

Edited by Jewbacca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy shibbles man.

 

There are ex dopers, dodgy doctors and rotten apples all over cycling and this is where Lappies chooses to make a stand? Reeeediculous.

The point is we all know that there are cheats (lets call dopers what dopers are) all over pro cycling, doctors, DS, riders, etc, but they are currently not banned from the sport for life, Armstrong is, to me there are no grey areas there, and the UCI president is correct in his criticism of the fact that he has been invited to have anything to do with any race, anywhere, ever, whether you are a fan or not. How can there be exceptions, albeit only slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm... dude, he took EPO.

 

How he took it is irrelevant.

 

He has admitted to taking EPO. 

 

Did he cheat? Yes...... yes he did. But that is a thread for another year (if you had a time machine) 

 

More on the issue, I see his podcast has been banned from some races... http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/colorado-classic-shuts-door-lance-armstrong-doping-ban-345828

 

THAT is at the core of my question ?

 

IS it irrelevant ?

 

 

ONE viewpoint is that he took it in such a manner that he DID pass all the tests at the time.

 

So what was the actual rule - at the time :

 

1) NO EPO ?

 

2) EPO not to exceed certain levels ?

 

 

IF "1", then it is a no-brainer, he and every other person that used it should never ever be connected to the sport again.

 

BUT, if the rules of the time had a loop hole, then it certainly is not such a clear cut case ....

 

 

I DONT know what the rule was at that time !  Would really appreciate clarity.

 

 

 

PS - same question applies to Chris Froome and various others - not if they used enough to trigger an alarm, but if they are allowed to use certain substances at all .... in which case many vacancies will open up at most teams.  But if that is the rule, then APPLY it !  Apply the rule to the letter without any exceptions, and clean up the sport for those that actually try to race clean but cant compete against juiced up competitors ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT is at the core of my question ?

 

IS it irrelevant ?

 

 

ONE viewpoint is that he took it in such a manner that he DID pass all the tests at the time.

 

So what was the actual rule - at the time :

 

1) NO EPO ?

 

2) EPO not to exceed certain levels ?

 

 

IF "1", then it is a no-brainer, he and every other person that used it should never ever be connected to the sport again.

 

BUT, if the rules of the time had a loop hole, then it certainly is not such a clear cut case ....

 

 

I DONT know what the rule was at that time ! Would really appreciate clarity.

 

 

 

PS - same question applies to Chris Froome and various others - not if they used enough to trigger an alarm, but if they are allowed to use certain substances at all .... in which case many vacancies will open up at most teams. But if that is the rule, then APPLY it ! Apply the rule to the letter without any exceptions, and clean up the sport for those that actually try to race clean but cant compete against juiced up competitors ....

Read Tyler Hamiltons book if you want to know what they did
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godwin's Law. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi though. 

 

Oh s**t what have I done?

not sure what you have done.

 

i only see two ** so either a spelling error or my ** thesarus cant process any other words ....

 

*spit*

*spat*

*stat*

.................... :ph34r: :nuke: :excl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout