Sour Grapes make fine French Whine

[Devastatin Dave]

Lance Armstrong...

Now, the fact that the French would keep a cup of piss since 1999 is a little disturbing, if not, unbelievable, is kind of bizare...

So lets debate this, is Lance a doper, or is there just some very poor losers running the Tour De France?

[Proletariat]

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs," the 33-year-old, who retired after this year's Tour in July, said in a statement on his website.

He added: "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and [L'Equipe's] article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself.

"They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since [the] defendant's rights cannot be respected'."

There were no tests to detect EPO, a drug that increases the level of red blood cells and endurance, in 1999. But samples from the 1999 Tour were kept frozen and have been retested at Chatenay-Malabry. The Wada-accredited lab, which developed the test to detect EPO, began retesting last year as part of a research programme.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/46ec8e5c-1492-11da-9df1-00000e2511c8.html

They have nothing here. Just petty bitterness. He might be a doper, but there's no more reason to think he is than anyone on the tour. Except he's American and crushed the competition.

(Second Organ to hideously misuse 'sour grapes' in two days)

[Papewaio]

I thought all samples had to be kept for a number of years as standard procedure.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The questions ought to be:
Is Lance a doper or not?
Are there just some very poor losers running the Tour De France, or realistic people with some common sense?

The answer to the second question is definately the latter. They're right in storing cups of piss of the participants. I'd say thank god they're finally coming to their senses and have started acknowledging what everybody knows - that they're running the most dope-infested event on earth.

The first question is more difficult. We can't know for sure. There are good arguments pro and con.
Read some of them in this book (http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html)

The secret does not lie in his muscles—in fact, plenty of athletes could beat him in the leg-press. Rather, it’s in Armstrong’s amazing ability to transport oxygen to those muscles. He can work very hard for a very long time—a function of his heart and his blood. He’s got a great motor, and the world’s greatest fuel-delivery system.

On the one hand, you’ve got Armstrong’s spotless record: 150-odd doping tests over the past six years, all clean. You’ve got the fact that he donates money to testing programs, that he’s probably the most-tested athlete in the history of sports, that his $20 million in endorsements would end if he tested positive. You’ve got the fact that some journalists would clearly love to nail Armstrong. You’ve also got the sheer epic stakes of the present situation. As Armstrong’s agent, Bill Stapleton, put it, “Can you imagine what would happen if Lance tested positive? Can you imagine what would happen if it turns out we’re screwing with people on this?”

On the other hand, you’ve got the fact that doping is inseparable from bike racing. (If you’re interested, check out The Crooked Path to Victory: Drugs and Cheating in Professional Bike Racing, by Les Woodland.) In 2004 alone, three current and former world champions were busted for dope, one team was nearly disbanded, and several pro cyclists went public with detailed, harrowing stories of doping practices on their teams, including one who said he was given a substance designed for anemic dogs. What would people say about the NBA if Kobe, Shaq, and Tim Duncan all tested positive in a single year? If a bunch of them died of heart attacks—as eight cyclists did in 2003-4?

You’ve also got the accounts accumulated by David Walsh, who spent two years trying to prove Armstrong might be a doper. His book, L.A. Confidentiel, came out on the eve of the 2004 Tour. It was 375 pages, and it went into exhaustive (and exhausting) detail.Maybe he is the greatest and most dedicated athlete on the planet, with a one-in-a-million heart/lung system. Maybe they used 'creative' therapy after his cancer.

Oh, and the grapes are not that sour for France. None of his competitors —Jan Ullrich, Iban Mayo, Ivan Basso— are French. We've got nobody who can compete with Lance, dope or not.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd make it 99.9%.

Crazed Rabbit

[Aenlic]

I'm not going to take a stance on Lance (man, I slay me), except to say a couple of things.

It's possible he was trying to juice himself much like Raphael Palmeiro, by using drugs that are borderline and maybe deniable if caught.

I think there's a more likely explanation which is being overlooked. These results came from his first Tour win. This just after he was recovering from cancer. His treatment for cancer included both chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Both of these can seriously deplete a person's red blood cell count. A common thing in such cases is to give the patient a drug to enhance red blood cell prduction. Now, the performance enhancing drug he's accused of taking in 1999 acts to increase the number of red blood cells thus increasing the oxygen delivery to the muscles. Is it not possible that the results are instead showing indications of him being given drugs while treated for cancer that helped to alleviate the red blood cell loss from chemo and radiation therapy? I'm just tossing that about as a possibility, because I'm not sure of the timeline in this, such as how long it had been since his cancer therapies concluded and how drugs from such treatments might last in his body. But it seems possible to me that even if he did show positive for such a type of drug that the explanation is more benign due to the above.

[bmolsson]

Here is a Swede that doesn't care as well......

[Red Harvest]

Who knows? Did he do something he might have been able to get away with in 1999? Possibly (and we'll get back to that.) However, he couldn't have been doing it for his more recent wins. It still looks like he's the real deal.

I'm not too convinced of the proof, and I'm skeptical of a test performed so much later. I simply don't trust a urine test for trace compounds with that long of a gap. I wouldn't even trust the chain of custody by that point.

I've seen a false positive before for a drug test--a truly trace amount of a properly reported prescription medication. It wasn't for me, but for someone applying for a job who I knew had no drug history. She was devastated (it is hard to defend yourself when you have no idea how you could test positive.) After doing some detective work I was able to figure out where the testing office had screwed up and gave them one hell of a butt chewing when I found out that the result had not even been reviewed by a doctor. When a doctor looked at it and a later test he confirmed they had been wrong, it was trace only on the first test and on a valid reported prescription, and was absent in the second. (He said that it was such a low level that it should have been rejected even in the first test.) I then reported half a dozen problems with their procedures to the employer who was using their services. She got the job by the way. ~:cool: This was a real eye opener for me.

While I favor drug testing, I want a fairly high degree of corroboration, proper intial screen, and retest before I'm going to accuse someone of using. I've had plenty of tests myself (just part of the job) and at least my employer was doing it right. When we caught employees in a drug screen, there was no real doubt about the result, and retests were done.

In the absence of any secondary confirmation, there being no way to do so, and the whole way this has been done, I think Armstrong should sue them for slander. The burden of proof should be on them. I don't like funny business with the tests. :whip:

[Xiahou]

So lets debate this, is Lance a doper, or is there just some very poor losers running the Tour De France?Most likely not- and if he was, there is no proof at all to suggest it. The French magazine in question is really behaving shamefully.



(Second Organ to hideously misuse 'sour grapes' in two days)Really? How?

[Proletariat]

The expression 'sour grapes' is from an Aesop fable where the Fox was trying to get the grapes out of a tree from the Rabbit, I believe. When he couldn't get them down, he said "Well, they were probably sour anyway."

Adrian used it to describe Bush regarding the Sheehan affair and now it's here describing a sore loser.

Sour grapes is saying something you cannot get isn't worth getting once you realize it's unattainable.

[Papewaio]

If the person who came second to Lance Armstrong said that the Tour de France is not special that would be a case of Sour Grapes.

Essentially if you miss out on something that you were going for and then say that the object is substandard that is a case of sour grapes.

If Paris turned around and said they weren't really interested in getting the Olympics when London won, then it would be a case of sour grapes.

[Xiahou]

If the person who came second to Lance Armstrong said that the Tour de France is not special that would be a case of Sour Grapes.

Essentially if you miss out on something that you were going for and then say that the object is substandard that is a case of sour grapes.

If Paris turned around and said they weren't really interested in getting the Olympics when London won, then it would be a case of sour grapes.
I think it's also considered acceptable usage when it's in reference to someone trying to pooh-pooh or make less of someone else's successes. Like if a certain French magazine said 'Yeah, maybe Lance won 7 times in a row- but he cheated.' It's essentially the same thing- you're dismissing someone else's success by saying they somehow didn't earn it.

I really don't think that instance qualifies as a "hideous" misuse. The other instance may well have been (didn't see it), though. ~;)

[Adrian II]

I'd make it 99.9%.

Crazed RabbitIt shows. What you guys don't seem to know is that all pro cyclists use doping. Armstrong was just a little cleverer than the rest. That whole 'sport' is nothing more than a pharmaceutical experiment on wheels.

[Divinus Arma]

Here is what I know:

Lance Armstrong kicked the crap out of everyone. And all of this came after losing one of his nuts...

It kind of makes you wonder, you know?





I mean really.... really.... wonder....




Like, just how badass is that one nut?

[Big_John]

just think of how fast he would have been without any grapes in his sack (sour or otherwise)!!

[Divinus Arma]

just think of how fast he would have been without any grapes in his sack (sour or otherwise)!!


lol!!!!! :laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

The expression 'sour grapes' is from an Aesop fable where the Fox was trying to get the grapes out of a tree from the Rabbit, I believe. When he couldn't get them down, he said "Well, they were probably sour anyway."

Adrian used it to describe Bush regarding the Sheehan affair and now it's here describing a sore loser.

Sour grapes is saying something you cannot get isn't worth getting once you realize it's unattainable.

You're right, how about if i just say the French are being a##holes? :book:

[Adrian II]

You're right, how about if i just say the French are being a##holes? :book:How about behaving like a grown-up? This forum is PG13, but that doesn't mean we all have to behave like 13 year olds.

[Idaho]

You're right, how about if i just say the French are being a##holes? :book:

From now on I am going to make you responsible for the entire content of CNN and every word that Hilary Clinton utters. They are american right?


Personally I think they should legalise all performance enhancing drugs. Imagine how cool it would be to watch 10 foot tall bionic super giants at the olympics!

[Sjakihata]

yes, very good idea Idaho. If you cant control it, legalize it. I'd love it. The tour de france would be over in just, 10 days? Then we can have two! Weee

[Ser Clegane]

I would appreciate if you guys could refrain from quoting the profanity here - would make my work a bit easier :brood:

[Devastatin Dave]

Gotta love it... :dizzy2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh bummer, I missed a DevDave classic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The expression 'sour grapes' is from an Aesop fable where the Fox was trying to get the grapes out of a tree from the Rabbit, I believe. When he couldn't get them down, he said "Well, they were probably sour anyway."

Sour grapes is saying something you cannot get isn't worth getting once you realize it's unattainable.

Prole:

You are, of course, correct as to its original use and cite a classic example. American usage, however, is to say "sour grapes" when someone is complaining about/bitter regarding some result or event. Even though this usage is incorrect, the sheer number of people mis-using it will change its meaning in practice.

After all, the milenna began on 1 January 2000, and millions of folks told the purists (who were right) to shut up and deal.

Seamus

[Reverend Joe]

Personally I think they should legalise all performance enhancing drugs. Imagine how cool it would be to watch 10 foot tall bionic super giants at the olympics!

NO.

They should not, under any circumstances, make performance-enhancing drugs legal. :brood:

...Unless they make them mandatory as well. ~D

Seriously, though, that would be entertaining as hell.

[Proletariat]

Even though this usage is incorrect, the sheer number of people mis-using it will change its meaning in practice.


This works for simple words like when people write tee-shirt. Completely wrong, there is nothing tee (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tee) about it, but enough people have misunderstood the difference for it to have changed. (It's a t-shirt, because it's in the shape of a T.)

Expressions deriving from stories are not the same as basic words.

Anyway, Dave's play on words was kind of funny anyway (although I liked his original correction better). I was just giving him a hard time.

[edyzmedieval]

Personally I think they should legalise all performance enhancing drugs. Imagine how cool it would be to watch 10 foot tall bionic super giants at the olympics!

You need to stop watching SF movies. You watched too many!!!

[Louis VI the Fat]

They should not, under any circumstances, make performance-enhancing drugs legal. :brood:

...Unless they make them mandatory as well. ~D But they are mandatory, kind of.

A few years ago, after several major dope-scandals, the Tour was made less challenging. They had to, after phycisians made it clear that it had gotten so tough, that it was just sheer impossible to ride it without performance-enhancing drugs.
It was calculated that it was simply beyond the capacity of a human being to generate the amount of energy needed to ride a bike at 50 kilometers an hour, for hours at a time, 21 days in a row, by what you and I would consider 'natural' means.

The Tour is cleaner now than a five years ago. But it still is a pharmaceutical exercise. The average rider takes more drugs in the form of pills, powders and drinks in a day than a block full of crack addicts in a year. Anything that isn't illegal or can be traced.

[Devastatin Dave]

Anyway, Dave's play on words was kind of funny anyway (although I liked his original correction better). I was just giving him a hard time.


~D :bow:

[Aenlic]

You need to stop watching SF movies. You watched too many!!!

Actually that whole line of reasoning reminded me of the 300th anniversary issue (Ok, so that won't occur until 2056, but that didn't stop them) of The Onion satirical newspaper. It specifically reminded me of the pic in this fake news story from the 2056 issue:

http://theonion.com/2056-06-22/news/4/

http://theonion.com/2056-06-22/news/4/government.jpg