The Armstrong Lie

[User169]

Sorry - I forgot that mentioning Simpson was a cheat was unwelcome by some.... rather proving the point

Proving what imaginary point exactly?

Yes, he was a cheat, but that doesn't say anything especially interesting in itself.

Surely though, you can't really believe that he was "one of the first": unless of course your familiarity with pro racing is truly superficial.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I must apologise if you really feel that I have upset your need to censor these discussions.....

As far as I am concerned it is permissible to answer other peoples posts - even if it without your (unneccessary) approval.

And no matter how many times you state that I in some way think my opinions count more than anyone's else, there is no substance to your claims. Feel free to continue to just type "simpson blah blah blah" over and over. But expect to get told that it's a load of old bóllocks. That is not censoring, it's my opinion. And that of (almost*) everyone else as far as I can see.

*you excluded...

 

[ufkacbln]

And no matter how many times you state that I in some way think my opinions count more than anyone's else, there is no substance to your claims. Feel free to continue to just type "simpson blah blah blah" over and over. But expect to get told that it's a load of old bóllocks. That is not censoring, it's my opinion. And that of (almost*) everyone else as far as I can see.

*you excluded...

Excellent...

Pointing out Simpson was a cheat is Bollocks!

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Pointing out Simpson was a cheat is Bollocks!

Okay, fire on yerself...

 

[ufkacbln]

Proving what imaginary point exactly?

The fact that it is an unpopular and inconvenient fact

Yes, he was a cheat, but that doesn't say anything especially interesting in itself.

Surely though, you can't really believe that he was "one of the first": unless of course your familiarity with pro racing is truly superficial.

The point is that he was one of the first....

Prior to this time, there was a "grey area" where doping was unequivocally cheating, but not actually banned.

I assume that (with your apparently far superior knowledge) you are aware that these drugs bans only came into place in 1965 and the first tests in teh Tour de France in 1966. In 1967 when Simpson died from illegal performance enhancing drugs, there were few precedents, this to most with a mathematical mind would make him one of the first to contravene and be found out to be cheating under these rules.

So yes I do really believe that he was one of the first to cheat by contravening the regulations of the Tour de France.

 

[ufkacbln]

No it is not bollocks but what of it? It doesn't diminish any of Armstrong's crimes.

It isn't me claiming it is bollocks....

 

[ufkacbln]

But what of it? How is Simpson relevant to Armstrong?

Please read The Armstrong Lie

 

[User169]

The fact that it is an unpopular and inconvenient fact.

I can't see that anyone disagrees with you, so again not sure what your point is.

 

[ufkacbln]

I have thanks. Are you suggesting that Armstrong does not deserve his punishment because Simpson wasn't?

That is a little absurd....

Simpson is important in this for two reasons...

1. He was one of the first who was found to be inconclusively cheating following the introduction of rules banning PEDs
2. He shows how a cheat can become rehabilitated to a figure that can become a popular celebrated icon.

Neither in any way suggests anything about Armstrong's punishment, it reflects one possible future if the lessons from the past are not learnt

 

[ufkacbln]

I can't see that anyone disagrees with you, so again not sure what your point is.

Marmion is on record claiming that claims of Simpson cheating are "bollocks"

 

[User169]

[QUOTE="Cunobelin, post: 3239900, member:

Prior to this time, there was a "grey area" where doping was unequivocally cheating, but not actually banned.

I assume that (with your apparently far superior knowledge) you are aware that these drugs bans only came into place in 1965 and the first tests in teh Tour de France in 1966. In 1967 when Simpson died from illegal performance enhancing drugs, there were few precedents, this to most with a mathematical mind would make him one of the first to contravene and be found out to be cheating under these rules.

So yes I do really believe that he was one of the first to cheat by contravening the regulations of the Tour de France.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so now you're limiting it to the rules of the TDF which at the time was actually UCI rules. I had understood you to mean cheating in a broader sense.

However, if you accept the primacy of the dates, you'd then have to concede that substantially all of Simpsons palmeres stands since it was achieved prior to 1966.

 

[User169]

[QUOTE="Cunobelin, post: 3239900, member:

Prior to this time, there was a "grey area" where doping was unequivocally cheating, but not actually banned.

I assume that (with your apparently far superior knowledge) you are aware that these drugs bans only came into place in 1965 and the first tests in teh Tour de France in 1966. In 1967 when Simpson died from illegal performance enhancing drugs, there were few precedents, this to most with a mathematical mind would make him one of the first to contravene and be found out to be cheating under these rules.

So yes I do really believe that he was one of the first to cheat by contravening the regulations of the Tour de France.

Ok, so now you're limiting it to the rules of the TDF which at the time was actually UCI rules. I had understood you to mean cheating in a broader sense.

However, if you accept the primacy of the dates, you'd then have to concede that substantially all of Simpsons palmeres stands since it was achieved prior to 1966.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I edited this whilst @Crackle liked it: hope I don't get called a cheat!

 

[Crackle]

It still gets a Like.

Most of this stuff from Cunobelin has been refuted umpteen times, I'm just not anal enough to go find the quotes.

 

[StuAff]

So yes I do really believe that he was one of the first to cheat by contravening the regulations of the Tour de France.

Presumbly you forgot to add 'by taking performance enhancing substances' (there's been plenty of cheating by other means...).

 

[ufkacbln]

Will if you accept the primacy of the dates, you'd then have to concede that substantially all of Simpsons palmeres stands since it was achieved prior to 1966.

Different question...

Any athlete who knowingly uses a substance to gain an advantage is cheating.

Lets look at a drug that appeared for the first time in 2012

It is investigated, and becomes banned in 2014.

Any athlete using it after 2014 becomes banned.... was it's use prior to that morally right, or it's use any more acceptable, or was it still cheating?