Previous  1 ... 8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Actually, 2Cdo said he doesn't condemn Lance.

If I'm a recovering alcoholic, you must be a non-recovering one, since you like to bash drugs but get all testy and defensive when someone points out that alcohol is also a drug.

   

Let's count the number of threads andy uses his new catch phrase in!

It's now 2.

   

Thanks andy. I suppose it's better than regurgitating new catch phrases daily in every thread. I can't wait to see tomorrows!

   

You're making basing your moral equivalence on two false premises: 1. there's a distinction between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs; 2. movie/music making isn't a competition with rule-imposed fairness.

You raise an interesting topic for debate, but there are certainly obvious differences between performance enhancing drugs in the sporting arena and recreational drugs. The term "performance enhancing" is the key. Sporting contests need to be held on a level playing field. If pro-cycling or Olympic swimming or whatever sport decides to allow players to dope it up, fine, then it's a level playing field. But as long as the sport's governing body has decided that no PEDs are allowed, then violating that rule is cheating. Since film making isn't a competition and there is no rule-making body governing that activity, there's no "cheating" taking place if actors/musicians use narcotics. I don't criticize Armstrong for taking drugs. I criticize him for cheating. If Armstrong had been stripped of his wins for using marijuana use, I wouldn't characterize him as a cheater. Pot is not a PED and cycling's governing body would be wrong to include that substance on its banned list for performance enhancing reasons. If they wanted to include it on their banned list for other reasons, fine.

There are two types of drug offenders in sport. The NFL and MLB suspend players BOTH for using performance enhancing drugs as well as recreational ones. But there's two different reasons here. The PEDs are banned in the interest of preserving a level playing field (and for the athletes own health). Recreational drugs are banned because the league holds players, as role-models, to a level of professional conduct. A player who is caught using a PED is a cheater and a bad roll model. A player using a recreational drug is a bad roll model, but not a cheater. Two different accusations altogether. Ricky Williams was a bad role model, but he wasn't a cheater.

I suppose you could claim that pot and LSD are performance enhancing for musicians and artists. There are certainly many stories of how drugs have influenced musicians' creativity. But again, there is no competition and no governing agency that makes the rules of conduct for artists. Taking drugs doesn't make you an artistic-cheat. And either way, musicians who are train-wreck drug users ARE held accountable in the court of public opinion. For example, I enjoy the Doors' music but I have no respect for Jim Morrison's character or the manner in which he lived his days.

If the music or film industry were to decide to organize governing body and impose codes of conduct on their actors/musicians, fine. They could hand out suspensions for drug use on similar role-model grounds as those used by the NFL and Major League baseball. But anyone punished under those rules wouldn't be a cheater. Lance Armstrong is a cheater.

   

Actually my original post was in your remark about morality. In that sense there is a moral equivalency irrespective of which kind of rules are broken. At its base equivalency doping athletes and illegal drug users break rules - be they sporting rules or laws. Saying one is okay while the other is not does not add up.

   

Actually what I bash is the use of illegal drugs under the guise of some moral crusade. I'm all for legalization. And of course alcohol is a drug, Andy. What a simple fellow you are.

   

Having had extensive experience in this exact area, I can confidently claim that they are not, in fact, performance enhancing.

   

Nope, you just think they are while you're doing them.

   

I'm not saying either is okay. Recreational pot use is an adult choice that I make, but I'm discrete about it because I don't want my neighbours or children to know what my friends are doing when the garage band's jamming.

But criticizng Armstrong "adds up because" 1 + 1 = 2. A recreational drug user is breaking one rule (using drugs). A performance enhancing athlete is breaking two (using drugs and cheating).

   

Then how do you explain "Layla" and "Quadrophenia"? Would those records have been even better if Clapton and Townshend had been clean?

   

I don't agree with the math. Armstrong is scum because he cheated, then gloried in his victories. He deserves to be banned from the sport. OTOH, who cares what people put in their bodies, that should be up to them, and they have to deal with the consequences. I personally wouldn't care of Armstrong was a heroin addict. He can afford it, it wouldn't be cheating.

The problem for making performance enhancing drugs allowed in sport, is that the lure is too strong, people would do it for the short term glory. We don't want to promote people seriously harming themselves in sport. Oh, wait, we already do it with boxing, football, hockey, etc just by the nature of the sport. Cycling is kind of lame anyway, just some crashes, almost nobody dies. Now if they exploded on the way up the Alpe d'Huez, that would be exciting.

   

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

When I played in a band LSD was the norm. We sounded real good until the recording was played back.

   

Rabobank to end its sponsorship of professional cycling teams:
http://www.rabobank.com/content/news/ne ... _teams.jsp


This piece has a bit more info, but is in Dutch, so I guess google translate has some work to do...
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/10/19/rab ... ielrennen/

   

I don't disagree about criticizing Armstrong, I guess we'll agree to disagree at the irony of it all though and the drug use mathematics for establishing the degree of moral depravity.

   

To add to that, there's are two separate classes of performance enhancing drugs. Some are legal, some are not. Who decides?

Why is it acceptable to inject Derek Jeter with a steroid to prevent him from feeling pain in his ankle during the playoffs?

Same goes for Curt Shilling....injected so much, his ankle's bleeding and he's pitching just fine on his torn ankle.

That win in game six forced a game 7 and the Red Sox were the first team in MLB history to come back from a three-games-to-none deficit.

That year, he was named Sportsmen of the Year by SI along with his teammates.

We're allowing the use of steroids and drugs just to get people onto the field and play during very painful injuries but not allowing those already playing to heal faster or be a little stronger.

   

Previous  1 ... 8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next