Lance Armstrong

[matt71]

sorry did not read all the thread

 

[USER1999]

not just Gregg but also Stephen Roache too. I for one hope Indurain was drug free as he was my idol in my old cycling days

No chance indurain was clean.I don't think any one was back then.

 

[davemc1]

Really should lay off Armstrong. I tried riding a bike whilst on drugs once, fell into a hedge after a few seconds... :whoo: :rofl:




*pinched from tim burgess

 

[Jimaroid]

I think plenty of elite cyclists stayed clean but very few of the big winners did.

They didn't all dope, I think it's one of the sadder parts of the whole situation that the honest athletes get labelled like the ones who cheated.

 

[Pro Zach]

The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling. Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned, because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.

 

[Tongo]

The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling. Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned, because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.

I've tried to think of an appropriate response to this, but simply cannot put it into words. What a load of tosh. (That'll do) You cant accuse people of cheating when using the handicap system because its part of the rules!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling. Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned, because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.

First written evidence of "Handicaps" 1680, surely someone would've come up with a better format by now?
Or is that because there isn't a better option?

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling. Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned, because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.

I'm not sure you understand the point behind the handicap system

 

[Ethan]

The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling. Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned, because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.

Moral argument? That is a weird and opaque argument you are using there. For a start, it is untrue, not everyone was taking drugs, at least not until he strongarmed (no pun intended) them into it. Anyway, it is a version of "Just following orders" blaming others for your failing. Armstrong simply didn't believe the normal rules apply to him. He hasn't changed a bit since. He is a narcissist who was prepared to do anything to win, then blame everyone afterwards. In any case, it is not a moral, or ethical, argument.

Armstrong beat cancer, and could have been a great role model as a result, but he has wasted his legacy.

And now he plays golf. For someone of his fitness, mental strength and will power, who plays 250 rounds a year at some of the finest courses on the US, he must be pretty crap to only be a 10 handicap. That is about a 12 in there UK. I am sure he has the same ethical flexibility when it comes to rules of golf, but at least he is only cheating himself, and not very well with that handicap. I doubt he ;loves the code of honour, but he likes that he doesn't have to wee into a cup afterwards.

 

[drdel]

I think this in an excellent post. I was a massive Armstrong fan, like many others on here and I too was sure he was innocent, so to find out he was in fact guilty was a huge disappointment. That being said, why would that make him a cheat at golf? It wouldn't as far as I am concerned and would happily play with him. I wouldn't even give him cheating a second thought.

I agree. Its so easy to be pious and its easy to slag him off but sometimes we should take a hard and honest look at ourselves before we jump to judge others.

At the time his competitors were also into similar substances - with most Team's trainers looking for drugs that would not be detected. He was still better than his peers. Reporters said he'd do it again- its not what he said. He actually said that IF the same conditions existed as in the past he could see how he'd compete without taking the same stuff as others!

He was a figure head and became the fall guy.

Unfortunately the press wants everyone to be pure as driven snow and put them on a pedestal then take great delight when the find a flaw.

I doubt very much that the professional game of golf is any 'cleaner' than other sports and its my opinion that many Professionals will try all manner of stuff (antlers, etc. etc) if they think it'll give them and edge and its not on a banned substance list.

 

[Pro Zach]

First written evidence of "Handicaps" 1680, surely someone would've come up with a better format by now?
Or is that because there isn't a better option?

Handicapping was introduced into golf to equalise odds to facilitate betting. I don't know of a better system to do this.

If you want the monthly medal to be a fair bet then the handicap system is very good. If you want the monthly medal to be a competition then the system is unfair. A better format for competition has been used throughout human history.

A competition is only fair, or has meaning as a competition, if it is on a level playing field. Handicapping deliberately unlevels the playing field to equalise odds.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Handicapping was introduced into golf to equalise odds to facilitate betting. I don't know of a better system to do this.

If you want the monthly medal to be a fair bet then the handicap system is very good. If you want the monthly medal to be a competition then the system is unfair. A better format for competition has been used throughout human history.

A competition is only fair, or has meaning as a competition, if it is on a level playing field. Handicapping deliberately unlevels the playing field to equalise odds.

So, using my club as an example (Club championship) i can tell you this years winner from 5 blokes, why would the rest of us enter, that's why we use handicaps for other comps, to make it competetive for all.
We all strive for a lower handicap and dream of scratch.

 

[Pro Zach]

I've tried to think of an appropriate response to this, but simply cannot put it into words. What a load of tosh. (That'll do) You cant accuse people of cheating when using the handicap system because its part of the rules!

If we used rules as a moral guide then we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the vote.

 

[Imurg]

Here we go again......

 

[Tongo]

Handicapping was introduced into golf to equalise odds to facilitate betting. I don't know of a better system to do this.

If you want the monthly medal to be a fair bet then the handicap system is very good. If you want the monthly medal to be a competition then the system is unfair. A better format for competition has been used throughout human history.

A competition is only fair, or has meaning as a competition, if it is on a level playing field. Handicapping deliberately unlevels the playing field to equalise odds.

Such as?

Whatever the origins of handicapping, it has moved on since then and allows all players to compete for a monthly medal or golf competition rather than those playing off of low handicaps. Or would you rather that a handful of members won all the tournaments? The system is by no means perfect, but no system ever is.

 

[Tongo]

If we used rules as a moral guide then we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the vote.

Your use of slavery to back up your argument against a system for pithy golf tournaments really is disingenuous and distasteful. Nobody gets hurt or is oppressed at a monthly medal. Have a word with yourself.

 

[virtuocity]

Nobody gets hurt or is oppressed at a monthly medal.

What about hurt and depressed?

 

[drdel]

Forgive me for interrupting the spat; but what on earth has handicap, slavery, oppression and depression got to do with Lance Armstrong?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Forgive me for interrupting the spat; but what on earth has handicap, slavery, oppression and depression got to do with Lance Armstrong?

I believe someone is trying to suggest its a form of cheating by using your HC ? i may have that wrong ?

 

[tsped83]

Really should lay off Armstrong. I tried riding a bike whilst on drugs once, fell into a hedge after a few seconds... :whoo: :rofl:




*pinched from tim burgess

Hahahahaha. This is pure gold! Not to fussed about the big 'moral' debate. But this is just flat out funny.